Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Unleaded Petrol

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentages of car refuellings now take place at garages which stock unleaded petrol.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): There has recently been a dramatic increase in outlets. The UK Petroleum Industry Association has advised that approaching two out of three refuellings now take place at petrol stations where unleaded fuel is available.

Mr. Martin: I welcome that reply from my hon. Friend and also the leaflet, "Adjust to Unleaded", which the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport are producing and which I hope will have very wide circulation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the wider availability of unleaded petrol is vital if we are to have more stringent controls on exhaust emissions? What are the Government doing about that and what do they intend to do in the future?

Ms. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The "Adjust to Unleaded" leaflet is supposed to give practical advice and encouragement to people to use unleaded petrol. It is certainly the case that the distribution and use of unleaded petrol pave the way towards the strict car emission standards to which we are committed. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today that—provided that the industrially unrealistic interim standard of 1991 is withdrawn and there is a commitment to respect the unity of the market—we shall agree to the Commission's proposals for the new standards for small car exhaust emissions.

Mr. James Lamond: While joining in congratulating the hon. Lady on the information that her Department has issued to the public, I draw her attention to one point. When the owners of a number of cars listed as being fully available to use unleaded petrol consult the dealers—for example, Volkswagen vehicles—they are told that they have to use a tank of leaded petrol from time to time to keep the engines in good order. Will the hon. Lady investigate that?

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. I chair the unleaded petrol group which works with members of the motor, petrol and

oil industries and various Government Departments. We have been at great pains to ensure that proper and reliable information is available throughout the country. Of course, the information provided by the dealer or the garage mechanic is vital. I have even attended a training day for garage owners to encourage them to give the proper information to their customers.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I congratulate the Government on carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for a 10p per gallon gap —the largest anywhere in the EEC—in the taxation of unleaded and leaded fuel. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is just as important to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from power stations by having a balanced element of nuclear power as to control the amount of lead going into the atmosphere from petrol, which is also very important?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the substantial differential, which I believe is the second highest in the European Community. It has made a significant difference to the uptake of unleaded petrol. He is right. of course, to identify the whole question of carbon dioxide. At the Council of Environment Ministers the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, my hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, will be pressing the Commission to bring forward measures to tackle greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, which is a matter of great concern to us all.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister has just made a most significant announcement, which should have been in the form of a formal statement. After a virulent, sustained and misinformed campaign by the Government against the catalytic converter and the adoption of stricter United States standards for vehicle emissions in Europe, have the Government not just done a U-turn by accepting the EEC directive on stricter vehicle emissions? Will the Minister confirm that although this will mean that all new cars will have to run on lead-free petrol and have a three-way catalytic converter the Minister's statement makes it clear that the Government are still trying to delay the implementation of those new standards from 1991 to 1993 and intend to move an amendment along those lines at the Council of Ministers meeting on 8 June? If that amendment is not carried, will the Government still try to hold up implementation of the directive?

Mrs. Bottomley: I apologise for having taken the wind out of the hon. Gentleman's sails and for disappointing him with my announcement today. For a long time the Government have believed that three-way catalytic converters and oxidation catalysts would have an important part to play in controlling pollution. That is one of the reasons why we have been so determined to extend the distribution and availability of unleaded petrol.
There is concern about the accumulation of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. We believe that the right way to protect the environment is on the basis of hard science, not hot heads. We are seeking an agreement and it is time that the motor industry and the consumer knew the way forward. We shall welcome the Commission's proposals on the basis of the few conditions that I have made clear. We hope that we shall be able to encourage


others to follow our example in taking sufficiently seriously the problems of the greenhouse effect and climate change.

River Polluters

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what date members of the public were given the right to prosecute polluters of rivers.

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): Members of the public were given the right to prosecute polluters of rivers by sections 31 and 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which were brought into force by the present Government on 31 January 1985.

Mr. Hughes: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that all the extra measures contained in the Water Bill will be implemented fully by the Government whereas the measures brought in by the Labour Government were never implemented? When we combine that fact with Labour's total opposition to the Water Bill, it is difficult to see the Labour party as the friend of people who want clean water. Labour is on the side of the polluters.

Mr. Howard: I can indeed confirm that the rights of private prosecution will continue under the Water Bill, which is designed to achieve substantial improvements in our water environment and will help to correct the mischief from which we are still suffering as a consequence of the lack of investment in the industry under the Labour Government.

Ms. Primarolo: In view of the Minister's reply to the main question, may I ask what steps the Government intend to take against the South West water authority, which has now polluted rivers for the third time, this time with aluminium sulphate?

Mr. Howard: The incident to which the hon. Lady refers is certainly regrettable, but it did not affect the quality of drinking water in any way. The South West water authority has substantially reviewed its procedures since the Camelford incident and is reviewing the incident to which the hon. Lady refers.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House and Members in the other place who care deeply about the purity of our river systems should not be hoodwinked into believing that there is a simple answer to pollution? While it is clear that sometimes the worst polluters are the water authorities themselves, the ecological balance of our river systems is extremely delicate and a great deal more research needs to be carried out by bodies such as the National Environmental Research Council and the Freshwater Biological Association.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. However, the National Rivers Authority will have a crucial role to play in ensuring that we have the highest possible river standards in this country. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that 95 per cent. of the rivers in the United Kingdom fall into grades 1 and 2—the highest proportion in any member state of the European Community.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the pollution incidents in the South West water authority area

—there have been three within 10 months—are serious public problems and not private ones? Will he initiate a proper independent inquiry to discover why South West Water has mishandled things in such a way as to allow aluminium pollution to occur three times in succession? Will he do something to ensure that the privatisation of South West Water does not go ahead until that proper independent inquiry has taken place?

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that those three incidents are an advertisement for public sector control of the water industry. The latest incidents need to be seen in perspective. Neither of the two more recent incidents affected the drinking water supply, but a thorough investigation of both is being conducted by the authority.

Mr. Harris: I accept what my hon. and learned Friend has to say about South West Water but how many times have water authorities prosecuted themselves for the pollution of rivers or water supplies? I appreciate that he may not be able to answer that, but does he not agree that one of the great benefits of the Water Bill is that the prosecution role will be taken away from the water authorities and given to the National Rivers Authority?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is most unsatisfactory that under the present system water authorities combine the roles of gamekeeper and poacher. We are moving away from that. The National Rivers Authority will be responsible for prosecuting under the new system which is being put into place and which I expect to bring a substantial improvement in standards.

Playing Fields (Sales)

Mr. Radice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to protect playing fields from being sold for purposes other than sport and recreation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): We have urged local authorities to take into account the needs of the wider community and to consult local sports and recreational interests before allowing recreational land to be developed, but these must be matters for local authorities themselves to decide.

Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that according to the National Playing Fields Association 800 sites, or 100,000 acres of sports facilities, have been lost for ever as a direct consequence of Government policy? Will the Government therefore withdraw circular 909 and prevent even more of our playing fields from being taken over by property developers?

Mr. Chope: The fault does not lie with the Government but, often, with Socialist local authorities. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that yesterday the Socialist ILEA decided, over the heads of the London Playing Fields Society, to sell 20 acres of playing fields in south London. That proposal was hotly contested by the Conservatives, but sadly the Socialists had a majority.

Mr. Tracey: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few months ago Mr. Neil Fletcher, the leader of the Socialist-controlled Inner London education authority said that he would take all steps to prevent property developers from buying ILEA sports grounds and building houses on them?


Yesterday ILEA agreed to sell 20 acres of unencumbered sports ground. Does my hon. Friend realise the consequences of that precedent, given that ILEA has more than 200 acres of satellite sports grounds? Will he give the House an undertaking to call in any planning applications to build houses on those sports grounds?

Mr. Chope: Any planning applications that are made would have to be referred to the local planning authority, which would consider whether the local plan was such as to give a clear indication as to what should be done with those playing fields. My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to what happened with ILEA. Fortunately, ILEA is soon to be abolished and will thus be unable to pursue any more of this Socialist humbug.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the Minister accept that this is a national matter and, therefore, a matter for Ministers? Is there not a responsibility to ensure playing fields facilities for generations of sportsmen yet to come? Does he think that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be so supine if someone wanted to flog off the playing fields of Eton?

Mr. Chope: The fact that we should have more recreational facilities is a national matter. I am pleased to say that as a result of the Government's policies more people are participating in recreation than ever before. That is a sign that we have achieved a good balanced policy at national level. We shall be updating the planning policy guidance on this and hope to issue a new document before the end of the year.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that most of ILEA's playing fields are in the outer London boroughs, which are not controlled by Socialist authorities? Will he therefore stop this nonsense and join me today in saying that it is absolutely essential for the future of community sport and school sport, on which all British sport depends, to stop selling off sports fields in any local authority whatever its political complexion? [HoN. MEMBERS: "What about Labour ILEA?"] Labour ILEA has playing fields in Conservative areas, where the authorities will not purchase them—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Howell: It is all right, Mr. Speaker; they think they are on the terraces.
Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in 1984 the now Minister for Sport—he is not present today—promoted a Sports Fields and Recreational Facilities Bill requiring the Government to monitor the sale of sports fields carefully and to take appropriate action. Why has he surrendered that proposal since taking office?

Mr. Chope: I hope that Socialist authorities up and down the country will heed some of the right hon. Gentleman's advice.

Mr. Hayward: Does my hon. Friend believe that any of the contributors from the Opposition have read his reply to the Adjournment debate on Monday night, particularly the reference to the sale of a sports ground in my constituency by the Co-operative Wholesale Society?

Mr. Chope: That comment is a further indication that the Opposition are clutching at straws. They do not have a consistent policy like ours; the sooner they develop one, the better.

Unauthorised Development

Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any intention to strengthen the powers of planning authorities to deal with unauthorised development; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend invited comments by 31 May on Mr. Robert Carnwath's report on this subject entitled "Enforcing Planning Control". When the response has been considered my right hon. Friend will seek an early legislative opportunity to strengthen the enforcement regime at present contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but will he tell us whether the Government intend to ad opt the recommendations in the Carnwath report? If so, what are his views on the 10-year immunity for unauthorised use?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really expects me this afternoon to pre-empt the entire consultation exercise on which we are engaged. The Government take consultation seriously, and I want to study carefully the views expressed in response to the consultation before I make up my mind about an} of the proposals.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's announcement that there will be legislation, but he will be aware from representations that he has received from many local authorities, including my own, that they consider their present statutory position quite inadequate. There is now insufficient provision to deter a developer who wishes to break all the rules. Can my hon. and learned Friend give a guarantee that that deterrent will be there in the future?

Mr. Howard: I agree that the enforcement powers now available to local authorities are inadequate. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked Mr. Robert Carnwath to report on the matter, and why we are consulting on the report and hope to proceed to action.

Mr. O'Brien: Can the Minister give us any idea of the timetable for the introduction of legislation, and when the consultation process will end? In the past 10 years of Tory rule, little has been done to prevent the abuse of planning laws. The appeal procedure is a costly and lengthy one for local authorities, and they must also suffer uncertainty about the outcome. It is therefore important that action be taken as soon as possible. Will the Minister also take on board the issue of third parties who may be aggrieved? Will they receive protection so that they can make representations in the event of abuse of planning laws?

Mr. Howard: There will certainly be opportunities for all interested parties to make representations. As I said in my original answer, my right hon. Friend will wish to legislate on the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Peak Park Planning Board

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to the Peak park planning board.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Knox: How does my right hon. Friend justify the fact that the Peak park is one of only two areas in the country where planning decisions are made by people who are not directly elected? Does he regard that as fair to those who live there?

Mr. Ridley: I know and acknowledge my hon. Friend's strong feelings and persistence on that point, but he will appreciate that if any change is made it will be necessary also to alter the arrangements for electing national park planning authorities—all of them, not just one or two. In Northumberland, only 2,500 people live in the national park, so such a solution would not be appropriate.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State recall that when greater Manchester council was abolished the place for its elected representatives on the Peak planning authority was abolished? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of people in greater Manchester enjoy visiting the Peak district for recreation and feel that they ought to have more say in the way in which its planning authority operates? They are particularly concerned that existing guaranteed access to water authority land should be retained and that the Peak park planning authority will not have to pay more for that access.

Mr. Ridley: Yes, and I am equally certain that many people living in the countryside would like more say in the way in which Manchester city council runs its affairs.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who represent constituencies in which national parks are situated appreciate the consultations that his Department holds with right hon. and hon. Members on the selection of the people who are to serve on planning authorities? Does he agree that voluntary organisations and societies representing people who love the countryside have an important role to play? Is he aware that last weekend the Exmoor Society, which started with a victory over a proposal to plant conifers on a large part of Exmoor, celebrated its 30th anniversary? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the work of such voluntary societies?

Mr. Ridley: I shall certainly do so, and I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the anniversary to which he referred. I hope that he feels that our decision to restrict grants for coniferous plantations on the uplands of England makes a contribution of comparable value.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the Secretary of State agree that one problem arising in direct elections is the size of constituency which should be involved? My constituents make regular use of the Peak park and should therefore be included in any extended franchise. If that happens, they should also have some control over what happens in the Peak park area. Water privatisation is interfering with

rights of access there. Does the Minister agree that those elected under any transformed electoral system should be able to influence that?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 12 different local authorities have part of their areas within the Peak district national park, but I entirely disagree with his comments about the Water Bill, to which the democratically elected Government and Parliament have given a fair wind because they believe it to be the right measure. The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the Bill provides full safeguards for access to hitherto accessible water authority land.

Mortgage Repossessions

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for homelessness arising from mortgage repossessions in the south-east and south-west of England.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): Estimates from local authority returns for the fourth quarter of 1988 are that about 300 households in London and the south-east, and about 100 in the south-west, were accepted by local councils as homeless as a result of mortgage repossessions.

Ms. Primarolo: Does the Minister accept that as a result of the Government's continuing disastrous economics policies, which brought yet another rise in interest rates today, the problem of mortgage repossessions is becoming even more serious? Is it not true that the figures that he gave do not take into account repossessions by banks and finance houses, and that the true proportion of homeless people in the priority need group presenting themselves to local authorities is one in 10? Is the Minister aware that the situation is deteriorating rapidly, and what action does he intend to take to solve this disastrous problem in the housing market?

Mr. Trippier: I can only describe the hon. Lady's figures as nonsense. The figures that I have already given in the substantive answer do not help the case that she is seeking to advance. The truth is that, according to the latest statistics, there has been a decline in the number of mortgage repossessions in the past two years. On the very point that the hon. Lady made about the economy, the director general of the Building Societies Association recently said:
The decline in the number of repossessions and arrears is consistent with the improvement in performance of the economy in recent years and … the sharp fall in unemployment
since
the middle of 1986.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best advice that he can give those who find themselves in difficulties with their mortgages is not to wait until the 59th minute of the 11th hour with the bailiffs knocking at the door, but to go to the building society office that they deal with, put the problem to them and reschedule the borrowing? Does he further agree that in such cases there may be a case for building societies and other reputable lending institutions to take properties back and relet them to the former owners to prevent pressure on housing waiting lists?

Mr. Trippier: I agree with my hon. Friend's earlier point. That is sound advice. Experience has shown that in those circumstances building societies are, in the vast majority of cases, sympathetic, and that has contributed to the fairly dramatic fall that we have seen in the figures that I have already given to the House.

Mr. Soley: The Minister's figures are misleading because they apply only to building societies, as the societies make clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) is right. The fastest growing area of homelessness for families is mortgage repossessions from all mortgage companies and the local authorities are having to pick up the bill. Why does not the Minister put that right? Does he remember the Tory party's promise in 1979 given by his ex-housing spokesman, supported by the Prime Minister in 1980, that mortgage rates would not rise above 9·5 per cent. under the Tory Government? Except on two brief occasions they have never been under 10 per cent. in the past 10 years.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman knows why we have to have this temporary period of high interest rates. Several undertakings have been given by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that front. The main purpose is to reduce inflation—a lesson that was never learnt by the Labour party in office when its record was disastrous. We have not got anywhere near the 27 per cent. that inflation reached then.
I question where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures for his earlier point. We have to give the figures that are available from a number of sources. They have to be correct and subject to parliamentary reply. The hon. Gentleman's figures are pure hypothesis.

Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that all the published statistics show that homelessness through mortgage arrears is a small proportion of those facing homelessness, the only purpose of the campaign being waged by the Opposition must be to alarm many people who have fallen into mortgage arrears and possibly to deter those who would otherwise buy their homes?

Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I genuinely believe that the campaign to which he referred which has been waged this week will not do a single thing to solve the problem—not a single thing. To put the matter in perspective, although it is distressing to the people involved—I emphasise again that no individual or political party has a monopoly on compassion—the latest figures show that less than one third of 1 per cent. of mortgage advances result in possession of the property by the lender.

County Hall, London

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the future use of the county hall, London SE1.

Mr. Ridley: The future use of county hall is in part the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court decision made in March 1988 and in part the subject of planning appeals recently submitted to me. Arrangements are in hand for the holding of a public inquiry. I cannot comment on the proposals.

Mr. Banks: Is not the conversion of county hall into a luxury hotel a studied insult to the homeless of London and to Londoners generally'? Would not the Secretary of State do well to advise the sleazebags who are corning up with this particular proposal that a Labour Government will take county hall back into public ownership by compulsory purchase and they will lose an awful lot of money unless they back off now?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot comment on the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I can assure him that the hypothesis contained in the second part certainly will riot come true.

Mr. Gow: In what ways would the progress of mankind be impeded if further municipal headquarters, notably those owned and occupied by Socialist authorities, were sold to the private sector?

Mr. Ridley: I confess that I am stumped by my lion. Friend's question.

Bad Landlords

Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to counter the activities of bad landlords in the private rented sector.

Mr. Ridley: The Government significantly strengthened the law against harassment in the Housing Act 1988.

Mr. Meale: As there will certainly be a future Labour Government, has the right hon. Gentleman noted the Labour party's commitment to tenants in private sector accommodation to provide additional protection by offering them the opportunity to opt for decent landlords in non-resident properties? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared immediately to offer that to tenants in the private sector?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is too early in that he predicts something that will not happen, yet too late in that we have already taken legislative steps to improve the law against harassment. The offence of
Harassing a tenant knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that this was likely to cause him to leave his home
is an improvement on previous law.
The hon. Gentleman probably is not aware that there is a new right to civil damages effective from 9 June based on the landlord's profit from illegal eviction. In a case brought by the Hammersmith and Fulham tenancy relations department a landlord was put in prison for 28 days under the new legislation. I can hardly think that the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with that.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the other half of the coin of private landlords is public landlords, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that enough is being done to deal with bad public landlords such as Camden council and others?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend, who knows that we are continuing to take measures both to get publicly owned stock properly and fully used and to improve the standard of management of some local authorities, which leaves a lot to be desired.

Mr. Soley: Why is it that the tenant of a Mr. Rachman or a Mr. Hoogstraten cannot have the right to change his landlord?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the public sector is not in competition with the private sector in many areas, and that shows very much in local authorities' service to their tenants.

Mr. Leigh: Does not the history of well-intentioned efforts by Government since the first world war to regulate the private rented sector prove beyond peradventure two economic facts of life—that shortages raise prices and that Governments create shortages?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. The effect of the Rent Acts since the end of the first world war has deprived large numbers of people of the opportunity to have the sort of accommodation that they wanted. One of the great achievements of this Government is that that restriction on supply has been ended, at least for new tenants.

Recycled Paper

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of paper used in Government offices is recycled paper.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Most paper and paper products used by Government Departments contain some recycled paper. A growing proportion is 100 per cent. recycled.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that one of the brakes on the expansion of the use of recycled paper is that, in general, it is more expensive than freshly produced paper? Would not a considerable expansion of purchasing by a major purchaser such as the Government ensure that manufacturers had the volume to reduce prices and so extend the use of recycled paper? Are the Government prepared to expand the figures that the hon. Lady has given to the House?

Mrs. Bottomley: Government Departments are responsible for their own purchasing policies, but Her Majesty's Stationery Office is able and willing actively to explain to Departments the qualities of the paper that are available at an economically viable price which offer good value for money. All Department of the Environment ministerial correspondence uses fully recycled paper. A great deal of the Department's other paper is fully recycled. In other areas, a proportion of the paper has been recycled. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) co-ordinates a group of Ministers who are trying to encourage and promote recycling. Other Government Departments are looking again at the issue.

Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that most paper is made from coniferous soft woods that are grown in many parts of the northern hemisphere as a crop, just like a conventional agricultural crop? In attempting to protect the overall quantity of paper that is used, we must ensure that we maintain an adequate level of afforestation in the northern hemisphere.

Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend has said, the wood used for paper production is a managed crop. However, the Government recognise that recycled paper has a very important part to play. The majority of the input into the mills is recycled. We are the fourth largest user of waste paper in the world.

Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that there is far more to a comprehensive waste policy in the United Kingdom than bagging, binning and winning it? Does she not agree that 70 per cent. of domestic waste consists of packaging and newsprint and that currently—this is what concerns the Opposition—less than 30 per cent. of our total consumption of paper and board is recycled? When will the Government introduce an integrated waste management policy that takes full account of the need to recycle? When will the Minister put her own house in order and say why all my previous requests that recycled paper should be used in the Palace of Westminster have fallen on the deaf ears of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is sitting next to her?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady must know that her last point is a matter for the Services Committee. The Government fully recognise the importance of recycling in helping to minimise waste and conserve resources and energy, whenever it makes economic sense and the proper quality can be provided. There are many remarkable initiatives to promote recycling. Only this week I launched Sheffield's recycling city initiative. Where it makes economic sense, Sheffield hopes to recycle a great number of products. It is important to work with the private sector. The way in which the private sector in Sheffield is working with the voluntary bodies and the local authority is a good example.

Mr. Redwood: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to work out how many trees have had to be cut down to provide material for all the press releases, letters and motions put forward by the Liberal party, claiming credit
for other people's good ideas and hard work?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have not had the opportunity to work that out, but, rather than bagging and binning them, I hope that they will bag them, bin them and send them off to the City of Westminster where I know that the waste paper will be recycled and put to good use.

Urban Development Corporations

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of each urban development corporation's budget in both 1988–89 and 1989–90 is allocated for community projects and voluntary sector initiatives.

Mr. Trippier: The percentages of UDC budgets allocated for community projects and voluntary sector initiatives for each of the years specified are as follows:



1988–89
1989–90


Black Country
1·3
1·8


Bristol
0
1·0


Central Manchester
1·4
1·6


Leeds
0·9
0·1


London docklands
3·3
6·5


Merseyside
4·5
3·1


Sheffield
0·4
0·7


Teesside
2·4
0·3


Trafford Park
0·1
0·3


Tyne and Wear
0·3
0·9

Mr. Michie: Obviously the figures are not as high as we should like them to be, and we are disappointed. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that priority should be


given to community projects, such as sports, open space parks and social housing? What advice is he giving to the chairmen of the UDCs to discuss these issues with the local authorities and the voluntary sector, both of which have vast experience of these matters?

Mr. Trippier: I certainly have no quarrel with the last point that the hon. Gentleman made. Sheffield development corporation is anxious to work with the local authority. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of local councillors are on the board. Among the initiatives supported by the development corporation are ethnic minority, social, educational and recreational projects, which is impressive. There are statutory responsibilities of Sheffield city council that have not passed to the urban development corporation. Those powers are retained by the city council. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to transfer those powers to the UDC.

Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) who, as a former Sheffield city councillor, will probably recollect that the powers are there. The local authority has power to do such things. Various leaders of Sheffield city council are members of the UDC and I am sure that the two bodies talk to each other. Furthermore, Sheffield city council is the planning authority or assists with planning for the development corporation.

Mr. Trippier: Indeed. We have an agreement with Sheffield development corporation and the city council that the council should be the agency for planning. That is a step forward. I detected in the substantive question on the Order Paper some antagonism. Contrary to what I expected, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) was not antagonistic in his supplementary—in stark contrast to his contributions in the past.

Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the revitalisation work that is being carried out on the waterfront in Liverpool and the work of the Merseyside development corporation. The Minister will be aware of the widespread concern because some of the voluntary sector and community initiatives that are desperately needed in the area have not got off the ground. Will the Minister give continued attention to trying to find ways of using resources to benefit the local people rather than just tourists and businesses?

Mr. Trippier: I shall consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The main point is that a development corporation should not in any way supplant work that could be done by a borough council or, as in Liverpool, a city council. I recognise that development corporations can in some cases act as a catalyst. There is a good example in the Merseyside development corporation with regard to training and the support that it gives to Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Limited.

Paper Conservation

Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce environmental measures to stop the excessive use of paper so as to save depletion of timber resources.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government promote recycling of paper wherever it is economically viable to do so. The use of recycled paper is increasing and already the United Kingdom is the fourth largest user of waste paper in the world. There are no plans for compulsory restrictions on the use of paper.

Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that efforts on recycling will be welcome on both sides of the House, as will efforts to encourage the planting of trees? Will my hon. Friend join me in a campaign against the excessive use of paper by mindless lobby campaigns, oversized and unreadable Sunday newspapers, junk mail and unnecessary photocopying, the waste of paper in Whitehall and, last but not least, the waste of paper in the House of Commons?

Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend. I think that most hon. Members and members of the Government agree that there is far too much paper in Whitehall. The only difficulty is that it has to go through Ministers' boxes on its way to being recycled by the City of Westminster. The only redeeming feature of junk mail is that if it has been through the Post Office in the last month it has at least arrived with "We love unleaded petrol" franked on it.

Mr. Haynes: Does the Minister agree that there is a shocking waste of paper? I cannot agree with her reply. The Secretary of State at her side is responsible for the environment. Why do we keep finding confidential Government documents on landfill sites? That shows clearly that the Government are wasting paper because the documents do not tell us anything. I suggest that we should recycle the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Bottomley: That was an uncharacteristically ungenerous remark from the hon. Gentleman about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who has pioneered many achievements for the environment. I shall riot respond in kind as, although I should like many Opposition Members to be recycled, I would not apply that insult to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that enough litter and waste paper is deposited illegally in Britain each year to reforest an area the size of Wales? Does she accept that any initiatives taken by her and the Department to encourage the recycling of paper and, therefore, saving the timber stock, are to be warmly applauded?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend who has done a great deal to promote activity and interest in the war on litter. Litter is offensive and needless and, as my hon. Friend well knows, the Government are determined to tackle the problem of litter once and for all. Not only is it a waste of resources, but it is unsightly and offensive and there is no place for it in a modern Britain.

River Quality

Mr. Conn Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of rivers in the United Kingdom were in good or fair condition at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Howard: The 1985 river quality surveys for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland indicated that about 95 per cent. of river lengths in the


United Kingdom were classified as good quality or fair quality; that is the latest year for which comprehensive figures are available.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the River Wye in my constituency is up to the mark, as it should be? Secondly, will he confirm that he is bringing the greatest possible pressure to bear on rivers in the United Kingdom which are not yet up to the top mark and that he is sustaining the greatest possible pressure on the rivers in the remainder of the European Community countries so that British industry is not disadvantaged in such an important area of trade?

Mr. Howard: Yes. No other member state in the European Community has a higher proportion of its river length in the top two grades of river quality than the United Kingdom. The River Wye has consistently been of class I quality for a considerable time.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister tell us the exact class of the River Rother from which my constituency gets its name? When are we going to start cleaning up that river?

Mr. Howard: Unfortunately the River Rother is not in either of the top two grades of river quality, but the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that its present condition is the result of activities that have continued for generations. The clean-up has started and its pace will quicken when the water industry is in the private sector.

Sir Giles Shaw: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend's comment about the River Rother. Does he accept that the River Aire, which also suffers from excessive industrial effluent, will likewise take a considerable time to reach the proper grade? In that regard, will he confirm that the National Rivers Authority will not be slow to set up regional operations within the Yorkshire Water region so that a proper plan can be developed and adhered to in the new-found capacity of the plcs to borrow and spend money?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The National Rivers Authority will take precisely the action that he has identified. The attitude of Opposition Members on this, as on so many other matters, is that things are absolutely dreadful as they are, so let us keep them exactly as they are.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister comment—as there has not been a statement on the subject in this House—on the decision, announced in the other place, that £5·5 billion will be written off the debt of the water authorities to make their flotation a success? Is he aware that it will not be the sale of our water industry but a daylight giveaway?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's comments are entirely incorrect, and I refer him to the Hansard of what my noble Friend Lord Caithness said in the other place. The write-off of the £5·5 billion refers only to the debt to the national loans fund which takes place on every privatisation. It will be replaced by securities with which each company will enter the private sector, and we shall announce our decisions on those securities at the appropriate time. If Opposition Members are really interested in these matters, I suggest that they read in Hansard precisely what was said in the other place, rather than relying on totally inaccurate reports of what was said by my noble Friend.

Mr. Allason: How far into river estuaries is testing conducted? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that recent tests undertaken just off the coast of south Devon displayed figures of six times the acceptable rate of viral contamination?

Mr. Howard: I am aware that those recent tests showed results which left a good deal to be desired, and those matters are being considered by the South West water authority.

Bottle-nosed Dolphin

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that marine nature reserves are able to provide effective protection for the two remaining resident populations of the bottle-nosed dolphin in Cardigan bay and Moray firth.

Mr. Ridley: My scientific advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council, have no proposals for the designation of Cardigan bay or the Moray firth as marine nature reserves. They have no evidence to suggest that such action would be an effective measure to conserve the bottle-nosed dolphin. This species of dolphin is, of course, already protected by virtue of its listing in schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is it not time that we had more than one solitary marine nature reserve in this country? Indeed, is it not time that the Nature Conservancy Council was given power to prevent toxic pollution of marine nature reserves in addition to other coastal waters? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dolphins and other species are literally being driven to extinction in the seas around Britain because of the Government's determination to assert Britannia's right to foul the waves? Is he further aware that it is time that we surrendered some of that sovereignty to more responsible authorities in Europe?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must know that it is for the Nature Conservancy Council to suggest marine reserves, and I can only consider proposals put forward by that council. The hon. Gentleman is under a typical delusion in thinking that the death of the seals last year was due to pollution, whereas it is now known that it was due to virus diseases. It might help if the hon. Gentleman got his facts right, which is what I want to do before I propose any solutions concerned with dolphins.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that the highly respected organisation Greenpeace will early next month be undertaking a survey of marine life in the Moray firth? Should Greenpeace produce evidence showing that steps need to be taken to protect the dolphin, the porpoise and other species, will the right hon. Gentleman act on it?

Mr. Ridley: I am glad to say that I am not responsible for the activities of Greenpeace. The Natural Environment Research Council considers it inconceivable that there are only two remaining groups in United Kingdom waters of the bottle-nosed dolphin, which is what Greenpeace has apparently alleged.

Rural Enterprise and Development

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will revise and reissue his Department's planning policy guidance note number seven, dated January 1988, on rural enterprise and development.

Mr. Howard: We hope to do so later this year.

Mr. Key: I am glad to hear that. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there is great concern in rural parts of Britain about inappropriate levels of development, particularly by parish councils. Does he agree that the circular was way ahead of most planning authorities, that district councillors tend not to read circulars, that they then do not agree with the advice of their professional officers and that events end up with the matter going on appeal to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend and I wish that our circulars were more widely read. Indeed, I sometimes wish that a local authority controlled by the Labour party would take action to ban some of our circulars, as that would no doubt ensure that they received much wider circulation.

Residential Property

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure that his Department is making the best use of its residential property.

Mr. Chope: Where empty residential properties are not required for further Government use they are sold. If they cannot be sold because of legal restrictions, or sold within six months, they are offered first to the local housing authority and then to a housing association.

Mrs. Clwyd: How does the Minister explain that, at a time of record homelessness, 5·5 per cent. of residential properties owned by his Department have been empty for more than a year—twice the national average for local authorities? Instead of admonishing local authorities to put their house in order, why does the Minister not do so?

Mr. Chope: I welcome the hon. Lady's interest in the 38 vacant residential properties which is the total number owned by my Department. I hope that she is not trying to divert attention from over 100,000 properties owned by local authorities.

Drugs (Inner Cities)

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the problem of drugs in inner cities in the light of the drug-related disturbances involving crack in Wolverhampton last night".
Only last night in the Chamber I highlighted the vast improvements in the quality of life for residents in the high-rise area of Heathtown, in my constituency. Therefore, it was like waking from a nightmare this morning to hear on the radio news that, as a result of a police raid at the Traveller's Rest public house in which 20 people were arrested, large amounts of cannabis and crack had been seized. I received a full report of the disturbance from acting Chief Superintendent Jones of the Wolverhampton police early this morning and I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
As a result of the vigilance of the people living at the heart of the Heathtown community in alerting the police of suspicious activities in recent weeks centering on their local public house, the police responded to their concerns, took out a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and mounted their initiative at 9.45 pm yesterday. Initially, it involved 120 police officers and subsequently 250 riot police.
It is unfortunate that hundreds of youths saw fit to take advantage of the situation and converged on the scene. I am sure that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens will join me in praising the police for their urgency and initiative in dealing with the drugs problem. The police were well prepared in terms of clothing, training and the use of a helicopters with a night-sight facility. Their actions demonstrate their ability to control and contain what could have escalated into a highly explosive incident. The evidence of crack for the first time in Wolverhampton could have serious consequences for the Wolverhampton community. I regret to say that my worst fears have been realised.
You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that, on 17 January this year I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and asked her to ensure that the Government were taking every possible step to deal with the problem of crack. I have been reassured by my right hon. Friend's actions. Crack is referred to as a drug of the under-class —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her three minutes and I have listened with concern to what she has said. She asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the problem of drugs in inner cities in the light of the drug-related disturbances involving crack in Wolverhampton last night.
As the hon. Lady knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given precedence over the business set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that the

matter she has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit her application to the House.

Anglo-Soviet Relations

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the present crisis in Anglo-Soviet relations.
The matter is specific, in that the Soviet authorities have stated that the number of personnel of British institutions and missions in the Soviet Union must be reduced from 375 to 205. The latter figure is the quota allowed by the United Kingdom authorities for the personnel of Soviet institutions in this country. I would argue that the matter is important both for Anglo-Soviet relations, which have improved considerably—at least until the end of last week —and for British trade with the Soviet Union. The present crisis could cause immense damage to relations.
As Labour Members made perfectly clear in exchanges on a private notice question on Monday, we have no wish to condone actions by embassies in London, including the Soviet embassy, which would in any way undermine our national security. However, we are not convinced—I am certainly not convinced, as I pointed out on Monday—that the British Government did not have alternatives in this matter. We remain suspicious that the expulsions were carried out deliberately just before next week's NATO summit, at which the Prime Minister will press for the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons. Would such expulsions have taken place a week before Mr. Gorbachev came to this country?
These events are occurring at an important time for the Soviet Union. Tomorrow, for example, the new Parliament is due to meet. It is probably the first Parliament of its kind for 70 years because it will not be a rubber-stamp one. That is all the more reason why we should be able to have reports from journalists in the Soviet Union, but a number of British journalists are, unfortunately, likely to be expelled. I hope that, before the recess, we shall have an opportunity to debate these matters. It is extremely important that there should be good relations between the Soviet Union and ourselves. The sooner this crisis is over, the better.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will give careful and serious consideration to a debate on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the present crisis in Anglo-Soviet relations.
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take points of order at the moment because I must take a third application under Standing Order No. 20.

Interest Rates

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision to raise interest rates to 14 per cent. and its implications for the economic policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Today's interest rate rise is the tenth in a year. It is of urgent and serious concern to industry, small businesses, farmers and home buyers, because, although there is to be no immediate rise in the mortgage rate, how long will it be before that follows? We are paying the price for the Chancellor's mistakes last year in both monetary policy and in stoking up demand in his Budget measures.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was the Prime Minister's remarks in the House yesterday, expressing confidence in the Chancellor, that started the run on the pound which has given rise to the interest rate increase. You may feel, therefore that a period of silence would be welcome and that if the Prime Minister were to say any more it might add to the problems of confidence.
The Prime Minister is answering to a large conference of Conservative ladies on these matters. She ought to answer to the House of Commons on them as well. She ought to answer for the mess of the Government's economic policy and for the deep disunity on fundamental economic issues which is at the heart of the Government. The House is entitled to know whether the Government are prepared to take steps to deal with the fundamental problems of inflation and the balance of payments, or whether we are to expect further interest rate rises to bolster confidence every time there is a run on the pound. The country is entitled to know, and to know now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Bank of England's announcement of a percentage point rise in interest rates.
I regret that the matter does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way questioning your ruling on the application under Standing Order No. 20 of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), may I put it to you, in the presence of the Leader of the House, that since the developments in Anglo-Soviet relations, which concern a considerable number of hon. Members, have taken place since the debate on the spring Adjournment when we would have had the opportunity to raise them, and in view of the fact that we have only two more days left before the spring Adjournment, it would be

greatly appreciated if the Foreign Secretary were to consider making a statement on this matter before we rise for the recess.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that has been heard by the Leader of the House.

Points of Order

Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to column 255 in the Official Report of 16 May in which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is reported as having referred to a television programme on Tyne Tees and stated:
The cat was let out of the bag during the debate when the regional organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union, Joe Mills, said:
Of course things are better in the north-east now. It hurts me to have to say so but begrudgingly I have to say that Margaret Thatcher has been responsible for this."—[Official Report, 16 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 255.]
The latter paragraph is printed in the Official Report in a manner that suggests that it is an extract from the transcript of the television programme. However I have today received a copy of the transcript of the programme, and not only did Mr. Mills riot make any such statement, but in his only reference to the Prime Minister he said:
The final point I want to make is this, I don't want to give Mrs. Thatcher any benefit at all, let's make that absolutely clear.
Is it not a gross abuse of the privilege of this House for the hon. Gentleman to have done that, and should he not apologise to the House and to Mr. Mills?

Mr. Speaker: That seems an extension of last week's debate. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot be responsible for what is said in the House, provided that it is in order.

Mr. Richard Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was informed just a few moments before 3.30 pm that the hon. Gentleman intended to make that personal attack, which gave me no opportunity to refer to anything. Anyone who watched the programme, as I did—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman did—would have known from the tenor of the programme that there was an admission by Joe Mills that it was the Government and the Prime Minister who had improved matters in the north-east—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not on television yet.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the Standing Order No. 20 application of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question, which I believe is before the Select Committee on Procedure, about the way in which the House investigates difficult matters. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that when the Foreign Secretary made his original statement on this, I asked extremely clearly and politely whether he would refer it to the Security Commission. The Foreign Secretary chose not to reply to that question, although it was pressed from the Front Bench.
Subsequently, I tabled a question yesterday at the Table Office, which I believe was in total order:


To ask the Prime Minister if she will refer the matters which led to the recent expulsion of Soviet diplomats to the Security Commission.
As very often happens now to hon. Members of all parties, but especially to Opposition Members, we get the monosyllabic answer, "No," and no explanation of any kind such as used to be given to the House by Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries.
There may be good reasons why this should not be referred to the Security Commission, but if the proper channels of communication are gone through when the proper questions are politely asked, does not the House of Commons, of which you are the protector, Mr. Speaker, at least deserve some kind of explanation in matters so grave and serious? After all, why do we have Lord Griffiths of Govilon at the Security Commission, Sir Philip Allen and other distinguished people, unless it is to deal with precisely such matters? In a way, it is circumventing not the constitution—we do not have one—but the traditional bastions of British security and intelligence.

Mr. Speaker: I fully understand the point that the hon. Member has made. Again, I cannot possibly be held responsible for answers to questions—provided that they are in order, of course.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter that I raise involves the Official Report of yesterday. In an intervention during a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), I said:
As a member of the Committee who served with the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman a question? When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the sponsors of the Bill a minute ago, did he say, 'I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to you?".—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 893.]
That was a misquotation. The Editor of Hansard has checked the tape, and that passage should have read, "I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to speak to you."
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) indicated that I should be present at 3.30 this afternoon because he wished to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, my conduct in this matter. As he is not here, he must now accept the Official Report and your order yesterday—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to interrupt the hon. Member at this point. I confirm that he has had a letter from the Editor of Hansard, putting his correct words on the record. Furthermore, he has written to me on this matter, drawing to my attention the fact that it is a matter of privilege. Therefore, we cannot discuss it in the Chamber now.

Mr. Edward Leigh: rose—

Dr. Michael Clark: rose—

Mr. Speaker: In fairness, I will call the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).

Dr. Clark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night I was present in the House when the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made his accusation. I found his accusation so outrageous and so far from the truth that I did not believe that anyone could

take it seriously. I did not rise at that time to rebut it. It is true, however, that, after one hour of accusations from Opposition Members that I had behaved improperly in Committee, I left the Chamber after I had spoken. I went out that way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order is to me, not to hon. Members.

Dr. Clark: I left the Chamber, going that way out, and I saw the sponsors of the Bill. As I said, it was after one hour of being accused of impropriety by Opposition Members. As I went past the sponsors of the Bill, I said, "Since I am being accused of being in your pocket, I had better say hello to you." That is all I said; I said nothing else. Then there was uproar in the House as Labour Members objected to my being there. I stood there with my back to the House, saying nothing further until the House settled down. That is what I said. There was nothing improper.
I have made an appointment to see the Clerk of the House at 6.15 this evening to object in the strongest possible terms to the accusation by the hon. Member for Makerfield.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat that this matter has been referred to me as a matter of privilege.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: All hon. Members are aware that, when an issue is raised with the Speaker as a matter of privilege, it may not be raised in the Chamber.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It cannot be on this same matter.

Mr. Leigh: On a general point, Mr. Speaker. You have often reminded us that we are all hon. Members. Is it in order for an hon. Member to accuse a Chairman of a Select Committee of being in the pockets of one of the sponsors?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have said I cannot take points of order on this matter.

Mr. Kevin Barron: You have taken one from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

Mr. Speaker: I am not responding to it, and I am not taking further points of order on this matter. The House well knows the rules. When an issue is raised with the Chair as a matter of privilege, it may not be raised on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on a different matter?

Mr. Grocott: It is. It follows earlier exchanges about the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). It is clear that a correction will have to be made, in view of the admission of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that point of order.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has clearly said that it was not a verbatim report that he was quoting in the House; it was his view of what he heard on a television programme. In Hansard it is clearly recorded as being a verbatim report of what occurred on a television programme; it is in inverted commas in the usual way. Clearly it is a serious matter that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh should have had such a grossly contorted view of a television programme and one that was different from that of everyone else who watched it. However, that is more a problem for the hon. Gentleman than for the House.
What is a matter for the House is that the hon. Gentleman purported to quote verbatim from a record —in the form of a video cassette, which could be checked —but now says that it was not a verbatim report but simply his general impression of what went on. That surely must warrant a correction.

Mr. Speaker: I will cause the Editor to look into the matter in the light of what has been said about it this afternoon.

Mr. Peter Hardy: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It refers to yesterday but has nothing to do with the exchanges.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of amendments to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill were presented. I prepared most of them. I was aware of the difficult circumstances which surround the preparation or presentation of amendments to a private Bill that has not had a Report stage, which the Opposition regret. I was aware that such amendments had to be insubstantial in character, and I hope that I presented the amendments in an insubstantial way. I accept that some of them may have verged on the substantial, while others may have been too narrow or too broad, so that none of them was selected by you.
The point that I am raising, Mr. Speaker, is historically rather important, because people are asking me why those amendments were rejected. I have every confidence in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, and I would not challenge it in any

way, but people interested in that Bill, in private Bill procedures now, and perhaps for the next 200 or 300 years, might benefit if you were to give the House some guidance on the nature of amendments that are likely to be accepted.
Could the Standing Orders of the House be made more precise so that hon. Members may have a way of obtaining an opportunity to debate a Bill in detail and avoid the situation that faced my hon. Friends and myself? We found it extremely difficult to oppose this dreadful Bill because of the absence of a Report stage and engaged in an unnecessary amount of work in regard to that Bill. Your advice to the House, Mr. Speaker, would be welcomed by the general public.

Mr. Speaker: I have a responsibility to the House, of course, rather than to the general public. The House will know that the question of verbal amendments to private Bills is set out at some length in "Erskine May".

Mr. Hardy: I looked at "Erskine May".

Mr. Speaker: I draw the hon. Member's attention to that. In any event, Madam Deputy Speaker gave an explanation, reported in Hansard in column 864, as to why the amendments had not been selected.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Was the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) in order when he raised his point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Yes; otherwise I would not have called him.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 16 JUNE

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Alan Meale
Mr. Dick Douglas
Mr. Michael Stern

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Set-Aside (Amendment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Car Telephones (Safety) Bill

Mr. Douglas French: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enhance safety in the use of telephones in cars.
This Bill is a road safety measure. It addresses itself to the dangerous practice of driving a car with one hand on the steering wheel and the other hand holding a car telephone. That practice is becoming much too prevalent.
We have all seen people on motorways or driving round roundabouts more engrossed in their phone calls than in the road before them. That practice reduces the driver's control over the vehicle at a time when his concentration is, in any case, likely to be distracted by the call. It increases the chances of accidents and it should be stopped.
The first provision of the Bill is to require all such telephones to be of the hands-off type. That is to say, they should have remote microphones so that it is not necessary to speak directly into the mouthpiece and remote loudspeakers so that it is not necessary to hold the receiver to the ear to hear. Many car phones already have those facilities. All car phones should have them. The Bill would make it an offence for the driver of a moving car to use a phone which is not hands free.
The second dangerous practice which my Bill tackles is the way in which drivers dial the number of an outgoing call. If the dialling mechanism is in the handset, some drivers will hold the handset in one hand and key in the digits with the other. No hand is than available for the steering wheel. Some drivers rest the handset on the lower quarter of the steering wheel and steer the car with their wrists or their elbows. Others steer with their knees, which is not easy when one is driving round a corner.
I have considered carefully whether the Bill should stipulate that outgoing calls by the driver should require a voice-activated dialling facility. The technology for that exists and is in use, but it is much more expensive, not altogether reliable and must be reprogrammed for each individual driver. To insist on that provision, it seems to me, would place an unreasonable burden on equipment manufactures and users. The alternative is to require all numbers which are not voice activated to be preprogrammed using the facility which most car telephones already possess, whereby a number can be selected by keying in only one, or at most two, digits. My Bill would make it an offence for a driver to call an outgoing number except by voice-activated or pre-programmed dialling.
The third danger which the Bill addresses is the extent to which drivers take their eyes off the road while operating telephones. That happens because phones are often located well below dashboard level on a centre console near the gear lever. To dial even a short number from a unit fixed in that position diverts the driver's eyes from the road for several seconds. My Bill therefore provides that all the controls should be fixed towards the top of the fascia so that the driver's eyes remain in the line of vision of the windscreen and the road.
All these changes relate to the design and fitting of telephones used by a driver of a car while it is in motion. The same problems do not arise when a telephone is used by a passenger or when the vehicle is stationary.
I propose two exceptions to the general rule: lorries should be exempt because the high level of noise in the

driver's cabin would render remote microphones and remote loudspeakers ineffective; taxis and certain emergency vehicles should be excluded for much the same reasons that they were excluded from the seat belt legislation.
During the past year I, like other hon. Members, have asked a series of parliamentary questions to draw attention to these problems. The answers which I received were not always illuminating. In reply to a question on 20 June last year about voice-activated dialling, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said:
Our advice is clear: anyone who can afford a car phone can afford a hands-free microphone."—[Official Report, 20 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 444.]
That answer does him less than credit. It suggests that the problem has been treated less seriously than it deserves, which is an impression confirmed by the complete absence of any reference to the subject in the recent White Paper entitled "The Road User and the Law."
It may be argued that current legislation already gives the police adequate powers to prosecute a driver who uses a car phone dangerously. Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 covers driving without due care and attention, and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 make it an offence not to have proper control of a vehicle. However, that legislation provides the statutory basis for a prosecution once the danger has been caused. My Bill, apart from being much more specific, is preventative: it seeks to prevent what would be an offence under those provisions from taking place.
Does not the Highway Code already do that? It states:
Do not use a hand held microphone or telephone handset while your vehicle is moving, except in an emergency. Do not stop on the hard shoulder of a motorway to answer a call, however urgent".
That is sound advice. Unfortunately, too few people read the Highway Code, and, of those, even fewer take notice of it. Furthermore, it is only advisory and failure to observe its provisions is not an offence, even though such failure may be adduced in evidence in other proceedings. What is needed, which my Bill provides, is a clear and firm framework of law, with appropriate penalties. I envisage the penalties being incorporated into the points system.
Anyone who doubts the seriousness of the problem has only to consider that the number of car telephones in use has nearly doubled in the past 18 months. The number is now in excess of 400,000. By 1991, it is likely to top 1 million. That is a very large number of drivers who are in less than full control of their vehicles. Those figures apply only to fitted cellular car phones. The totals will be considerably more, and the danger much greater, as portable telephones become more powerful and capable of in-car use.
Legislation may not look easy to enforce, but it need be no more difficult than it was for seat belts. Despite the claim that the seat belt rules would be unenforceable, the usage rate for belts rose from 30 per cent. before legislation to 90 per cent. after it. The emphasis of my Bill is on the design and fitting of the equipment. If that is right, the correct usage of it will follow.
I regard car telephones as an increasingly essential amenity of modern business life. I do not wish to restrict their freedom of use. However, I want them to be used in a way that is safe and sensible and does not spell danger to other road users. I believe that my Bill achieves that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. David Porter and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

CAR TELEPHONES (SAFETY)

Mr. Douglas French accordingly presented a Bill to enhance safety in the use of telephones in cars: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

DOCK WORK BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Report [23rd May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That on the allotted day which under the Order [8th May] is to be given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading those proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion as follows:

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


New Clauses
6 p.m.


Remaining proceedings on Consideration
8 p.m.


Third Reading
Midnight

Orders of the Day — Dock Work Bill

ALLOTTED DAY

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

COMPENSATION FOR FORMER REGISTERED DOCK WORKERS

`(1) Any dock worker to whom the Scheme applied shall be entitled, on leaving employment as a dock worker, to a payment of £6,000 plus £3,000 for each complete year of employment under the Scheme.
(2) Payments under subsection (1) shall be funded on an equal basis by the Secretary of State and former registered employers.
(3) This section shall lapse ten years after the passing of this Act unless renewed by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Meacher].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in line 12, leave out clause 5.

Mr. Meacher: New clause 1 is designed with a simple but important purpose: to offer to dock workers made redundant after the abolition of the dock labour scheme, a level of compensation which more closely matches that which is available in other industries. For dock workers made redundant in the first 18 months after abolition, the Government propose a lump sum of £5,000, plus £2,000 for every full year of work, up to a maximum of 1.35,000. Those made redundant in the following 18 months will receive £5,000, plus £1,000 for every full year of service, up to a maximum of £20,000.
We propose a lump sum of £6,000, plus £3,000 for each complete year of employment under the scheme.

Mr. Ernie Ross: That is not good enough.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend says that that is not good enough. I take his point, but we shall be happy to settle for it if the Government concede it. It means that a dock worker who has served 15 years would receive £51,000 in compensation, and a dock worker who had worked 20 years would receive £66,000. Those may sound quite large figures, but they are in line with redundancy compensation currently being paid under other schemes.
The redundant mineworkers payment scheme is, in many respects, more generous than the Government's draft proposals for dock workers. Older mineworkers who are made redundant receive a lump sum based on age, length of service and pay, plus a weekly benefit. If those figures are added together, they amount to a substantial sum.
I have a British Coal press release, dated 7 October 1986, which quotes an average—I emphasise "average" —figure of £74,600 redundancy payment for men made


redundant at the age of 50 to 54. Some will receive more than that. It is against that comparison that the Opposition have drawn up their proposals.
It is only fair to point out that the Government scheme for mineworkers has been replaced by British Coal's own scheme. Although it is not as generous as the Government's proposals for dock workers, under the British Coal scheme, redundant mineworkers with 15 or more years, service are paid an additional lump sum of £7,500, plus £500 a year for service aged between 16 to 34, and £750 a year for service aged 35 to 65. On top of that, statutory redundancy pay can be paid, so that the maximum total is nearly £40,600 for someone with maximum service who retires before his or her 60th birthday. That figure is considerably more than the one proposed in the Government scheme for redundant dock workers, especially those who lose their jobs in the second 18-month period after the abolition, when, as I have said, they will receive a maximum of only £20,000. In other words, they will receive only half as much as is payable under the British Coal scheme, which is itself less generous than the redundant mineworkers' payment scheme.
The level of compensation that we propose is not particularly out of line with the redundancy terms current in many parts of the private sector. I went to some trouble to obtain an Industrial Relations Service publication which reviews 22 redundancy pay agreements made in 1988. It quotes a good many examples in considerable detail. It tells us for example, that the Alliance and Leicester building society provides payments of up to £60,000 for some senior managers. It may be said that managers constitute a different layer of the work force, but another example given is Express Newspapers, which provides up to £50,000 for members of the National Graphical Association as part—not all—of the severance terms covering job losses caused by major reorganisation of the group. Those, too, are substantially more generous than what the Government proposed.
I am not sure whether the phrase "brass handshake" has been used before, but it seems appropriate. Such handshakes are now fairly common throughout industry. I have deliberately abstained from citing the growing number of golden handshakes of which we hear fairly regularly from board rooms. Only six weeks ago, however, amid all the fuss about Blue Arrow's £25 million loan to Peter de Savary—in which the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was involved—we were told that Mr. John Sharkey has been paid off handsomely with a golden handshake of £225,000. All I can say is that he is lucky not to have been a docker; if he had been, he would have received about one seventh of that sum.
Again, two months ago, amid all the rumpus over the sale of three cemeteries by Lady Porter, it emerged that the lips of Westminster council's chief executive had been sealed with a £1 million golden handshake. It is a pity that the dock workers are not privy to a few more secrets. As people always say, what counts is not what a person does or how long he has been doing it, but who he knows—or, perhaps even more important, what he knows.
The new clause proposes that dock workers who have given a lifetime's service to the ports should receive proper and just recompense for the compulsory termination of their livelihood when, if they are over 50, they have little

chance of obtaining an alternative job. Unemployment is significantly higher in the scheme port travel-to-work areas. I have checked the facts: male unemployment in those areas averages 11·5 per cent., which is well above the national average. I am not saying that that figure is absolutely correct—I believe it understates the position —but, whatever the correct figure, the difference in relative terms is substantial.
It has been calculated, moreover, that unemployed men in scheme port areas have less than a 40 per cent. chance of obtaining a job—and, of course, the older they are the smaller the chance will be. Those older men will be the most affected by the compulsory redundancies that are about to be handed out. The latest count of the ages of registered dock workers produced an average age of 46.7, largely because of the port employers' unwise decision to get rid of so many younger men. Now it is those above that age whom they are most anxious to displace. Already the average number of unemployed over-forties in scheme port areas is 24 per cent., and that number is undoubtedly set to increase significantly when the Bill is implemented.
We simply propose that older men who are deprived of their jobs by compulsory Government-instigated reorganisation schemes, and who in many cases will probably never be able to work again, should be compensated in accordance with best practice for the loss forced on them. "In accordance with the best practice" is the crucial phrase: I am not saying that the terms are mean, but they are not best practice and we believe that they should be. The Government's proposals do not meet our criterion, and we are seeking to improve them.
4.15 pm
It is not as though either the National Association of Port Employers or the Government cannot meet those obligations. I need not remind the House that corporate profitability now stands at its highest for at least a decade, and the port employers in particular have not been doing too badly in recent years. The annual report of Associated British Ports, the largest employer, shows profits of £38 million in 1987, a 46 per cent. increase. In the first half of 1988, the company's profits rose by a further 59 per cent., and dividends per share by 25 per cent. Sir Keith Stuart, chairman of ABP, described it modestly as "a highly successful year"—as well he might, as he increased his own salary by 23 per cent. in 1987 to £97,000. Last year, deciding that he must keep the wolf from the door, he increased it by a further 23 per cent. to a modest £120,000.
The Opposition say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If ABP is making profits hand over fist, if its chairman can pay himself a six-figure salary and greedily award himself a 23 per cent. increase two years running, and, above all, if it is to make an extra £20 million in profits from the scheme's abolition as it claims, it can expect to pay a proper whack to those on whose backs it has made those growing profits, and whom it now intends to throw on the scrap heap so that it can increase those profits still further.
The money is there. One side—the company, its shareholders and its managers—is receiving enormous increases; only the dock workers are not receiving that level of remuneration. It cannot be said that the Government are exactly pinched at present, with an unprecedented Budget surplus of over £15 billion. The redundancy proposals in the Bill have been costed by the


Government at about £25 million. Our alternative proposals would cost about £35 million, not a great deal more.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Not much for a Socialist.

Mr. Meacher: As they have £15 billion or more to dispense with, an extra £10 million for making 2,000 people redundant is something that the Government could well afford. That was a very foolish interjection.
Our proposal constitutes a much fairer distribution of Government funds than general Exchequer Budget policy.
According to a parliamentary answer of 17 May, last year, 100,000 people in Britain with salaries of more than £70,000 per year have, over the past 10 years of Tory Budgets, received an average cut in their income tax worth no less than £37,550. If the richest people in this country who do not need a penny in extra assistance are given largesse by the Government of £37,550 each year, those whom the Government make redundant and who may never get another job deserve a good deal more than a one-off payment of less than £37,550.
In Committee, the only argument made by the Minister for Public Transport—not the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who is on the Government Front Bench today, but it is said that Ministers take collective responsibility—for refusing a better level of compensation for redundant dock workers was that higher compensation payments previously paid to miners were "exceptional". He stated:
It is true that a few years ago some miners received much higher compensation payments than will be available under the Bill. However, I emphasise that the circumstances of the industry at that time and the miners who received such payments were exceptional.
As though the abolition of the dock labour scheme is not highly exceptional. In trying to justify his claim that nothing special is proposed in respect of the docks, the Minister added:
I should not imagine that the rate of loss of men from the industry would be entirely out of scale"—
he meant, as a result of the scheme's abolition—
with what has happened in recent years.
However, the Minister's own figures reveal that abolition will, not surprisingly, be both out of the ordinary and exceptional. In Committee, the Minister for Public Transport also stated:
The … £25 million that we have included in the explanatory and financial memorandum would cover between 1,500 and 2,000 redundancies".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 May 1989, c. 505–37.]
That number of redundancies represents between 16 and 21 per cent. of the entire work force under the scheme. To get rid of one fifth of the work force and claim that such action is in no way exceptional is either cynical or extremely disingenuous.
Those redundancies represent a far quicker rundown than has occurred in the past. In 1983, there were more than 14,500 registered dock workers but now there are only 9,400, which represents an average decline of 840 per year. Under the Bill, the Government intend to bring about between two and three times more redundancies than in the past decade. Why did they bring in the Bill otherwise? Of course its intention is to increase redundancies. Even the present Government, whose record of concern over unemployment does not place them

in the first ranks of compassion, must acknowledge that that is an exceptional level of redundancy and one which commands an exceptional level of compensation.
New clause 1 will go a long way to countering some of the most malign consequences of this miserable little Bill. Given that the port employers have amassed huge profits in recent years, and have stated openly that they will make an additional packet out of sacking one fifth of their work force under the Bill, it is only right and just that dock workers should enjoy redundancy terms at least as good as the current best practice in other industries. I stress that we are not asking for a bigger pay-off that they can take and run with, because dock workers will receive those redundancy payments only if their employers decide to sack them. Redundancy will not be a choice that they can make for themselves. In those circumstances, we say that decency and justice require a more reasonable and upbeat deal than the distinctly unexceptional offer provided for in the Bill.
If the Government were as generous to dock workers and to trade unionists as they are to employers and to top-rate taxpayers, they would embrace the new clause with all the eagerness with which we press it.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr.. Meacher) made clear, new clause 1 proposes a compensation scheme to replace that suggested by the Government. The Labour party scheme—although in fairness I should call it the Meacher scheme, because the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has already made clear his view that his hon. Friend's scheme is not generous enough—is considerably more generous, and in some cases would pay the sum of £130,000. The Opposition scheme operates on a basis different from that included in the Bill and in the draft regulations that back it up, which amendment No. 3 seeks to omit.
The generosity of the Opposition's proposals gives an interesting insight into their view of the scheme's value to a registered dock worker. It is not only that the amounts of money differ but the entire basis is different, even though the hon. Member for Oldham, West, in his closing remarks, suggested that the basis of new clause 1 is essentially similar to that of our scheme.
The Government's proposals in clause 5 and in the regulations provide for enhanced redundancy pay for registered dockers who lose their jobs in the changes following termination of the scheme. The proposals in new clause I involve paying every registered dock worker who leaves the industry, for whatever reason, just because he is a registered dock worker. Under both schemes, the Government will normally pay half the cost, with the employers paying the other half. However, if an employer goes out of business and cannot meet his obligations, the Government's scheme will pay the entire cost so that the former docker will receive the full amount even if his employer becomes insolvent.
As I understand Labour's scheme, the Government would only ever pay half the cost, so if the employer cannot meet his obligation to pay the balance the docker will receive only half the sum due to him. That arrangement has some interesting consequences, to which I shall refer shortly. Perhaps it is intended to reward employees of profitable firms, for that is its effect. That is an interesting if slightly odd example of profit sharing. I certainly support the principle of profit sharing, but the


Opposition's proposals are not a very sound application of it. I would rather see port companies negotiating more conventional profit-sharing schemes with their employees.
At first glance, the Opposition's improvements may seem modest, offering as they do basic compensation of £6,000 plus £3,000 per year of employment, compared with our proposal for initial compensation of £5,000 plus £2,000 per year of employment. Under the Government scheme, there is a maximum payable of £35,000, whereas the Opposition impose no limit, except the arithmetic maximum of £132,000.
4.30 pm
We are proposing that payments should be paid in full only in the first 18 months and at lesser rates, as the hon. Gentleman said, for a further 18 months. The Opposition have a theoretical time of 10 years—theoretical for a reason that I shall come to—but, crucially, the Government are proposing to pay dockers made redundant whereas the new clause proposes to pay any registered docker who stops dock work.
The Government's scheme has a taper as retirement approaches because, beyond the age of 62½, redundancy has a more short-term effect. That is one of the differences between a redundancy scheme and a scheme for paying former dockers whenever they leave dock work.
The last difference between the two schemes has a particularly interesting consequence for the older docker. Consider the case of two dock workers aged 64 approaching retirement. Suppose that both dockers had worked all their lives in the docks and been registered dock workers ever since the scheme started in 1946. One of them, whom I shall call Mr. Meacher in order to attract the Opposition's sympathy, was a little older than his colleague, whom I shall call Alf Garnett. My theoretical Mr. Meacher's 65th birthday falls just before Royal Assent, whereas that of my theoretical Alf Garnett falls just after. Both retire on the same pension, but Alf Garnett will receive an additional £132,000—£6,000 plus £3,000 for each of the 42 years of the scheme because his birthday was a week or a month after that of his colleague. That would be his bonus for being one of the last of the registered dock workers. I imagine that the theoretical Mr. Meacher would be furious about that, but, in contrast, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has recommended the scheme to the House and we shall presumably vote on it shortly.
That points up what I said about the different basis of the Opposition's scheme. The Opposition's scheme is a reward for having been a registered dock worker, but the Government's scheme is an enhanced redundancy scheme, which is what it sets out to be. We recognise that there may be some redundancies when the scheme ends. We cannot tell how many—nobody can. Overmanning is a consequence of the scheme. We realise that the relatively generous voluntary severance payments will stop and we aim to compensate at a suitable rate those who find themselves redundant as a consequence.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask a simple question? A number of my colleagues have been reliably informed that Sir Jeffrey Sterling, chairman of P and 0, has been ringing the Department of Employment —perhaps even the Minister's private office—on matters relating to the Bill and the possibility of industrial action

in the docks. Will the Minister tell us exactly what those telephone calls were about? Were they about the proposals before the House today? It is in the interests of the general public and the industry to know about the special relationship that exists at times such as this between major business men and Ministers in Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Cope: I know of no telephone calls of that sort to my private office or to the Department. For all I know, there may have been some to the Department, but certainly not to my private office, and I am not conscious of any having been received by the Department.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the Minister automatically be informed of telephone calls on such matters by his Department's officials or by people in his private office?

Mr. Cope: That would depend on the content of the telephone calls, whether they were significant and what was happening. If they were significant, yes, I would be told.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of making the terms of redundancy too generous is that people will decide that they want to be made redundant and will do everything possible to achieve that? I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that we should be trying to encourage more employment in the docks. Therefore, to make the Government's already generous terms even more generous would be self-defeating.

Mr. Cope: That is one of the consequences, as I propose to explain.
Under the new clause, any registered dock worker who leaves dock work will receive the money. Why he leaves does not matter. He may have been convicted of and sacked for stealing. Examples were given in Committee of registered dock workers convicted of stealing whose employers were, under the scheme, made to continue employing them. But that is another story. Under the new clause, a registered dock worker of 30 years' standing who was sacked for stealing would nevertheless be paid £96,000.
Similarly, a docker with 30 years' service, sacked for persistent absenteeism—he might have got into the habit of bobbing off and not got out of it quickly—would, under the new clause, be paid £96,000, not for stopping doing the job—after all, that is why he was sacked—but for having been a registered dock worker. That is an interesting commentary on the Labour party's view of the value of the scheme to a registered dock worker.
I wonder what other workers in the docks think about the Opposition's proposal—if they are aware of it. Registered dock workers are only one third of the employees of registered port employers. I wonder what the rest of them think about it. For that matter, I wonder what members of the Transport and General Workers Union think about the proposals. We know from something that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) complained about in Committee that the TGWU has not been providing its supporters in Committee with much guidance, so it may not have seen the proposals. However, if it has not, it should look at them carefully.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) said in an intervention, the Opposition's scheme will also provide registered dock workers with a


considerable incentive to leave dock work. The lump sum payable is calculable at the time of Royal Assent and does not thereafter increase. A registered dock worker aged 40 with 20 years' service would immediately be paid £66,000 if his employer was solvent. If he worked on in the docks for another nine years, he would be paid £66,000 in nine years' time, again if his employer was still solvent. That demonstrates my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I am relatively new to these debates, but can my hon. Friend illuminate one point? Under the new clause, would a registered dock worker be able to take some other employment for a period and then return to the docks, perhaps to a non-scheme port, having claimed the full amount of the large redundancy payment to which he had become entitled?

Mr. Cope: As the new clause stands, yes. In addition, such a man would be able to return to employment in the same port where he had previously been employed. He would he able to return to employment with the same employer after an interval and still qualify. I used the period of nine years in my example, but, under the new clause, after 10 years the scheme may or may not come to an end. There is provision for it to be extended, but only by leave of the House. In practice, that would not matter, since I assume that most former registered dock workers would have taken their money long before and left, even if they were to return, as my hon. Friend has said.
I am not sure whether all the employers would last that long. Any employer who had, say, 100 dockers with an average of 20 years' service would have to provide in his accounts at once on Royal Assent for a potential liability of £3·3 million. I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the cost of his scheme; it would be far higher than he suggested. I have not worked out what effect it would have on each of the companies currently employing registered dock workers, but it would make life extremely difficult financially for some of them. I spoke of a potential liability—

Mr. Meacher: The Minister appears to be having a great deal of fun. He is both frivolous and rather silly in his criticisms of the new clause. We are not drafting legislation —[Interruption.] It is true, and it is always the case with Oppositions. The new clause does not mean that any dock worker could simply choose to take the money and run. The payments are quite clearly to be given only after a dock worker has been made redundant by his employer. The Minister's figures are figments of his imagination.

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman's comments are very interesting because they mean that the new clause has been tabled on a false basis. The new clause, together with amendment No. 3, removes from the Bill all provisions relating to redundancy. The Opposition could have left them in, but they did not. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that he does not support the basis of the clause. In that case, will he assure the House that he will not vote for it? The House is being treated in a rather peculiar manner. It has been presented with a new clause with which the hon. Gentleman now says he does not agree.

Mr. Michael Brown: This is almost a contempt of the House. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) tabled a new clause that, presumably, he hopes to persuade the House to accept. My

right hon. Friend has devastatingly shown why it should not be accepted. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, obviously having been convinced by my right hon. Friend's argument, now says that he does not expect the House to agree to it. It is incredible that my right hon. Friend should be expected to respond in all seriousness, as he is doing, to the debate when the hon. Member for Oldham, West has admitted that his new clause is an absolute sham.

Mr. Cope: My hon. Friend is right and I find myself in some difficulty. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has given up his new clause before I have finished opposing it. I have more to say, but I do not know whether to proceed —[Interruption.] It appears that the hon. Gentleman still intends to vote for his new clause and to recommend his hon. Friends to do so. That is rather peculiar.
It is not right to reward men simply for having been registered dock workers.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is time that the Minister stopped all this frivolity and dealt with the serious question before us. His behaviour today is similar to his behaviour in Committee. The Government are treating the Bill as a joke. The Minister should deal seriously with the new clause, because men's livelihoods is a serious issue, and should be treated as such.

Mr. Cope: I agree that it is a serious issue, but it is not a serious new clause. It clearly provides that there should be compensation for all registered dock workers. The Labour party is not alone in proposing that idea; others have suggested the same. I am glad that, apparently, the hon. Member for Oldham, West intends to withdraw it.
The Government's proposal provides for a maximum of £35,000, which is a fair and suitable sum in the circumstances. It compares reasonably with the voluntary severance payment now available, which is usually a maximum of £25,000, although under special arrangements some people have received as much as £35,000.
The Labour party's proposal—even if, as the hon. Gentleman now says, it applies only to redundancy—multiplies the present usual maximum by five. That is an enormous increase. The new clause is put forward on a false basis and does not deserve the support of eNen the hon. Gentleman. It tells us a great deal about the value that the Labour party places on registered dock work. It believes that maximum compensation should be increased fivefold. The new clause is fatally flawed, and should not be accepted by the House.

Mr. George Howarth: I support the new clause because there are several hundred dock workers in my constituency and several of them are good friends of mine. Dock workers are usually sensible and sound members of the community. If they had been here today to witness the Minister's frivolous contributions they would have recognised that it was just a poor, sixth-form debating society speech and not a serious response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
It was only today that I had the benefit of reading the new clause, and my understanding of it is rather different from that of the Minister. If the drafting is in any way defective so that the new clause does not achieve what we want—enhanced payments for dockers who will he made


redundant under the Bill—I am sure that my hon. Friend would readily agree to it being redrafted by the Government's draftsmen to ensure that our aims are achieved. The House has been treated to a 20-minute discourse of banal triviality that is unworthy of the Minister and does not help those whom we seek to represent.
My hon. Friend referred to generous payments—I prefer to describe them as further payments—to those made redundant. I want to make two points that, as yet, have received little attention. The old image of a dock worker heaving about heavy cargoes went out of the window with the mechanisation of the ports. I do not profess to be an expert, but I know from my acquaintances that dock work is now a highly skilled job. Those skills are constantly being reviewed and updated and the dock workers have to attend training courses to keep up with advances in technology. That is not uncommon. An increasing number of technical skills are required in most industries. The kind of skills that registered dock workers have cannot easily and readily be transferred to another industry. That is an important point to bear in mind when we consider compensation.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is making exactly the point that was made on Second Reading and in Committee—that because the ports have become automated the old dockers' jobs have disappeared. Many of the registered dock workers do not have the new skills that they need to use technical equipment, so they sit around ghosting the people who do the work. They need to be retrained for the new skills, but they will not get the new skills by sitting around and doing nothing while other people do the work.

Mr. Howarth: I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but it is fairly well known that employers have not provided the amount of training that is necessary for dock workers to use the new equipment.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: They have refused to give training.

Mr. Howarth: Yes, they have refused to provide it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: Let me finish this point and then I will give way.
Many of the dock workers that I know, as well as many of the dock workers in Liverpool, are highly skilled. They use all kinds of complicated equipment to move cargoes from one place to another and to load it on to ships.

Mr. Bennett: It is quite extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman now to say—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is shouting. He should try to intervene while the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is speaking rather than while I am intervening during the hon. Gentleman's speech. That would be more helpful.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North ought to be aware that in Committee his side moved amendments to replicate the training scheme that is provided under the national dock labour scheme in the non-scheme ports. He is now telling us that the employers in the scheme ports are

not providing training. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either they are providing training or they are not. Felixstowe, which is a non-scheme port, has an excellent training scheme. We want that to be replicated after the national dock labour scheme has gone into abeyance.

Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that that takes us any further. Our point is that there is not enough training. It is difficult to get the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to understand even the simplest concept, but let me explain what we want. He should watch my lips. We want the best practices to be transferred to the dock workers training system. That is not necessarily a bad thing, so we can have it both ways. We can say that there is not enough training, and we can also say that where the best training is provided we want it to be replicated throughout the industry. It is as simple as that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West referred to the coal mining industry. It is a good comparison. It is not just a job that dock workers do. It is a way of life. A docker does not go to work for a certain number of hours a day where he carries out a certain job. A whole way of life is attached to dock work. As with the coalfields, there are whole communities of dock workers. There is a long tradition attached to dock work. A social network is based upon it. If we take away the employment of a registered dock worker, we take away not just a job for which he needs certain skills that cannot easily be transferred to another industry; we also take away a way of life that may have been in existence for several generations.

Mr. David Davis: I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain exactly what are those skills that cannot be transferred. He talks about the automation of the ports. That means heavy cranes, forklift trucks and mechanical shovels. Most of the training for using that equipment is done in the construction industry. That would be an alternative use of dockers' skills. Forklift trucks and the mechanical handling of goods can be found in every factory and warehouse in the country. What is non-transferable about those skills? What are the greater skills that dockers claim to have?

Mr. Howarth: First, they have a combination of skills. Secondly, I do not profess to be an expert upon it but I understand that most of the equipment—[Interruption.] I can see that there is a lifetime of experience among Conservative Members of working with their hands in the ports. I doubt whether any of them have any knowledge of it whatsoever, yet they criticise the Opposition.
Most of the equipment is specifically designed and custom-built for work of that nature. It is not a question of dockers being able easily to transfer their skills to another industry. They have experience of using equipment for a specific purpose. That equipment is often not used in exactly the same way in other industries.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No. I have given way quite enough.
For all those reasons, the level of compensation for which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has argued is appropriate and fair. Despite the juvenile behaviour of many of those who sit on the Conservative Benches, I hope that the Minister will take our point


seriously. Even at this late hour, and even after such frivolous responses to it, I hope that he will accept the new clause.

Mr. Michael Brown: The Labour party's support today for dock workers is touching. It is a pity that the Opposition did not support the dockers yesterday. I represent the port of Immingham. Many registered dockers work in the port. I guess that they would have much more respect for the Labour party and the new clause if the Opposition had given a little more support yesterday to the dockers and had thought a little more about their future.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), referred to Associated British Ports and its profitability and to the need to use some of its profits to compensate the dockers. The dockers of Immingham would like Associated British Ports to be able to spend its profits on investment in the port of Immingham, to the tune of £30·5 million, in order to enable the port to attract the largest vessels in the world.
The port of Immingham was built in 1912. Its lock gates, which were installed in 1912, do not now allow the largest ships in the world to enter the port. Those ships have to go to Rotterdam. The port of Immingham—a scheme port—is trying to become competitive. It is trying to ensure the livelihood of dockers by bringing new jobs to the port, by expanding the port and by ensuring that the port can go forward into the 21st century. But what does the Labour party do?

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: Let me finish this point and then I shall gladly give way.
The Labour party had its chance last night to demonstrate its genuine support for the registered dock workers of Immingham, so I am not taking any lectures from the Opposition and I advise my hon. Friends not to take any lectures from them about their support for dockers. When it came to the test of whether the Opposition were prepared to support the expansion of the dock industry, we found that their support was not there last night. Whenever the Opposition have had an opportunity to show it, it has never been there. We should bear that point very much in mind before we consider accepting the new clause.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Does he not agree that last night the Labour payroll vote, sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers, was here to sabotage our Bill? Whenever the Opposition have a chance to help dockers, where are they? They are not here this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was still on his preamble, but he should come to today rather than deal with what happened last night.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who represents the port of King's Lynn, is doing his utmost, in a much more practica.' way than the new clause would ever do, to provide for the future of dockers. Conservative Members, by supporting

the Bill and resisting the new clause, want to ensure that there is freedom in the docks industry to employ more dockers.
5 pm
The new clause is nonsense. We had the admission from the hon. Member for Oldham, West that it is a joke clause; he more or less said that. He objected when my right hon. Friend the Minister went to great lengths to advise the House about why we should reject the new clause. If I had been minded to support the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the basis that it must be right to increase the amount of compensation for someone being made redundant, my right hon. Friend would have been negligent in his duty to the House if he had not drawn my attention and the attention of other hon. Members to what could happen if we voted for the new clause.
A docker in the registered docks of Immingham could cease to be a registered docker, not through redundancy but voluntarily, because he saw an advertisement in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph for work in the non-scheme port of New Holland, four miles down the road in my constituency, or perhaps in Gunness, 14 miles down the road in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Under the proposals in the new clause, that dock worker could leave Immingham with up to £132,000 in his back pocket, and walk or take his car down the road to Scunthorpe, New Holland, Barrow or Gunness wharf and take a new job. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was correct to draw attention to the effects of the new clause.
Labour Members should not say, "We are the Opposition; we do not have a constructive role to play in the House." Surely it is their duty to consider the consequences of new clauses that they table. It is just possible that some foolish Conservative Members, who did not listen with the care and attention that they should to Ministers at the Dispatch Box, might be tempted to vote for this extraordinary new clause. Thankfully, the hon. Member for Oldham, West more or less told the House that he did not expect the new clause to be taken seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister takes his duties seriously. In his response to the Opposition he rightly drew the attention of the House to the consequences of the new clause.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made unfair comments about Sir Keith Stuart. Sir Keith has been chairman of Associated British Ports since it became a private company. Before that he was chairman of the old British Transport Docks Board, which was a great favourite of the Labour party. Sir Keith should be congratulated on securing the future of dockers and on creating profitability for Associated British Ports, which does not want to sack every docker. It wants opportunities to create more jobs in the docks industry. The dock labour scheme and restrictive new clauses such as that proposed by the Opposition would shackle prospects for dockers and for the profitability of Associated British Ports. They would also restrict opportunities for more new jobs in my constituency.
We must resist the new clause because it would lead to a scandalous waste of resources. The compensation proposed by the Government is fair. It strikes the right balance and ensures at the same time that dockers can look


to a future based not on the restrictive practices of the past but on their ability to seize the opportunities that exist in this great industry.
The dockers in my constituency know which political party stands up for their interests. They know what happened last night in the House, and they will be waiting to see what happens in the future. They will not be seduced by the new clause. That is not the way for the Labour party to buy the votes of dockers in my constituency. Those dockers know that only one political party will look after their interests. They know which political party safeguarded their long-term interests.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has dealt with development proposals for the port of Immingham. My mind goes back some years to a time when similar proposals were put forward for the port of Bristol. Very wisely, as has been borne out by events, the Labour Government turned down those proposals. Subsequently, the Conservative party realised that there were marginal seats to be won in the city of Bristol. It stated that if it were returned to power at a subsequent election, it would give the go-ahead for development in Bristol. The dock was built as a result of authorisation by the Conservative Government, but it has been a disaster. Bristol could not give it away; it has become a heavy load on the ratepayers of the city.
I support the new clause which sets out proposals to try to combat the worst provisions of this hasty Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) set out the case for the new clause. Throughout the proceedings in Committee, my hon. Friend was the voice of reason, as he was this afternoon. He gave glaring examples of people who have received huge amounts of compensation, but when we ask for a little more for dockers we are ridiculed. All we hear from the Conservative side is mirth and laughter.
Subsection (1) of the new clause says:
Any dock workers to whom the Scheme applied shall be entitled, on leaving employment as a dock worker, to a payment of £6,000 plus £3,000 for each complete year of employment under the Scheme.
That is not really generous when one considers that the Bill was introduced so hastily and that the livelihood of people is at stake.
In a press notice issued on 11 May, subsequently amplified in Committee by the Minister, the Government indicated that any dock worker made redundant within three years of the legislation receiving Royal Assent would be entitled to a special lump sum payment. For instance, if the dock worker was made redundant in the first 18 months, he would be eligible for a maximum of £35,000, based on 15 years' service. It is worth reminding the House of the provisions. The Government proposed that the payment would be made up of a lump sum of £5,000, plus £2,000 for every complete year of service. The mean side of the Government was revealed when they said that the amount of compensation will be tapered off for every registered dock worker over 62½ years old. For every three months by which he exceeds 62½ years when he is dismissed, his compensation will be reduced by 10 per cent.
In comparing new clause 1 with the Government's provisions, it is necessary to consider the age of registered dock workers. It tends to be an aged work force. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that that is due

to the stupidity of employers in the past in getting rid of their younger employees. Only 19 per cent. of registered dock workers are under 40 years of age; 41 per cent. are between 40 and 50 and more than 40 per cent. are 50 and over.

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Not at the moment.
In the past decade I have witnessed many thousands of redundancies in south Wales in the coal and steel industries. This afternoon we have heard a great deal about the redundancy scheme for coal miners. It is worth reminding the House that coal had to be mined where it was found, and it was often found in the most inaccessible valleys. When a pit closes, a whole community is put in jeopardy, and, as a result of those pit closures, thousands of miners will never work again. Considering the arduous and hazardous nature of that occupation, when a miner in an isolated community is made redundant, one might say that it is an ending for him. He cannot simply cope with his new life.
In the steel industry, there were thousands of redundancies in Newport and Cardiff. When East Moors closed in Cardiff, 5,000 jobs went at a stroke. The steel industry was wiped out in the capital city of Wales. There were 6,000 redundancies at Llanwern and jobs have been cut drastically at other steelworks.
A few years ago, a social survey of redundant steel workers revealed the dire distress felt by many of those people. They had not found work, they had probably spent their redundancy money and many of them were likely never to work again. In Committee we were told many times that our dockers have adapted to new equipment and new working practices in the industry. But when they leave the ports industry, they are unlikely to take up unemployment in finance houses or microchip enterprises which are the nature of new industries in south Wales and elsewhere. The most likely outcome is that older workers in the ports industry will tend to stagnate, and as a result could create all sorts of social problems, particularly when they have spent their redundancy money.
We should like far more generous provisions for dock workers who will be made redundant. The problem needs to be tackled now. Only 9,400 registered dock workers remain in the ports industry. In 1983 there were 14,631, and since the inception of the scheme the number of registered dock workers has declined from more than 80,000.
What a farce is that old parrot cry that dockers have jobs for life. The redundancy provisions that the Government have set out do not meet the dockers' real needs.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I would rather not give way. I have heard enough from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) in the past two years to last me a lifetime.
Dockers are justified in their belief that they are being badly treated. As late as 20 March this year, the Government suggested that they had no proposals to legislate in respect of the dock labour scheme. Shortly afterwards, like a bombshell, they pushed a Bill through Committee with all the finesse of an ancient steamroller.


Throughout the Committee stage Labour Members tried to persuade the Government to pause and think again about what should replace the clock labour scheme. We recognise that the scheme may be a little out of date and need amendment, but we feel that there is a need for a national framework. The Government were not prepared to see reason. I note that they appear to be doing so in respect of lawyers and I feel that they are on their way to doing so in respect of doctors.
In those circumstances, bearing in mind the redundancy provisions that we are discussing, is it any wonder that, when the dockers eventually held a ballot, they voted by no less than three to one for industrial action?
Even at this late stage I urge the Government to make more generous redundancy provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West pointed out, employers are doing very nicely, thank you. In any case, the Government are paying half the redundancy money. If the Government were prepared to be more generous and accept new clause I, they might well avert a very damaging strike. We know the parlous nature of Britain's balance of payments at present. We know what happened today when interest rates rose by a major stroke. It is obvious that Britain is in serious economic difficulty and if there is a dock strike it will certainly he made much worse.

Mr. Boswell: I invite my hon. Friends to resist new clause 1. It is appropriate for me to speak in the debate precisely because I represent an inland midlands constituency which is almost as far away from the docks as it is possible to go. I hope to remind the House that it is very much in the interests of all parts of Britain and British industry that the Bill is passed substantially unamended.
We all have an interest in an effective, efficient and low-cost docks industry. I refer to my own experience, as for many years I have lived in my constituency as a practising farmer. Many right hon. and hon. Members will not be aware that Britain has moved from a traditional grain-importing role to a major grain-exporting role. We are now the fifth largest grain-exporting power in the world. That represents an amazing change, and to some extent it has come about in spite of the existing structure of our docks industry. I have had experience of sending grain on lorries from the midlands to all the major scheme ports, and to non-scheme ports, and it is clear that what we are discussing affects us all, whether or not we represent dockland constituencies.
There is the somewhat endearing myth, that the Labour party still likes to peddle, that no Conservative Member has any experience, direct or indirect, in any of those matters over which Labour Members claim to exercise great moral concern. I do not make a great deal of it, but it is relevant to mention that my wife's grandfather was a docker in one of the scheme ports in South Wales—[Interruption.] He worked hard in that job for 30 years and I have great respect for him. I have worked for most of my life among manual workers, although not in the docks.
I also have knowledge through my family—and in another context, to which I shall come—of the impact of redundancy on people, and I do not belittle the effect of that impact. It is sad, dramatic and shocking when a person is declared redundant. The issue is what we do about it—how we finance it and reach the right balance —and the proposals in the Bill represent the right balance.
There are several crushing objections to the proposed new clause, one of which has been rehearsed. I refer to the situation when somebody takes the money—compensation of up to £132,000—walks out of the door, walks round the docks, comes back in through the door, takes fresh employment and starts again as if nothing has happened. As the Opposition proposal is drafted, it is totally unworkable and out of the question.
Next, we must consider the wider question of the equity of what we are trying to do in these matters. Is it equitable that somebody should be able to receive compensation of that magnitude and then return to dock work, working alongside someone who has carried on working without receiving any compensation?

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is it not equally inequitable for the managing director of a company in the City of London to take £250,000 or £300,000 in compensation because his company has been taken over, and then for him the following day to go to work for perhaps a completely different company? If the hon. Gentleman says that that is inequitable, he must accept that a great many people in the City would be out of work tomorrow.

Mr. Boswell: Many people in the City have lost their jobs recently, and not all of them have found other jobs. At least the hon. Gentleman accepts the important point —I fear that many of his hon. Friends have failed to accept it—that there are considerations of equity in these issues and that we must relate them to the economic situation of the industry. We must have in mind the dock worker who leaves and returns to dock work compared with the man who carries on working and does not receive compensation.
Next, compare the case of somebody who leaves under Labour's proposals with somebody who took severance pay under the previous proposals. Is it fair that one should receive such a large additional amount, having carried on in employment for only a short time?
There is also the wider question of equity in relation to other industries. Farming, for example, is not doing particularly well just now. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will recall what happened to milk quotas and how many farmers left the industry. Nor should we overlook the issues affecting farm workers at that time. Many of us who have been active in agriculture would be pleased to take upwards of £100,000 to get out of the industry. We must therefore look right across the board when setting levels. After all, it is easy to be generous with someone else's money—particularly public money.
I referred to an interest that I had in redundancy issues. There is a proposal from the Plessey company affecting the town of Towcester in my constituency, which has a population of upwards of 6,000. The company has declared its intention to close some of its manufacturing facilities—without prejudice to whatever might happen in any takeover bid—and has said that 375 jobs will go. Although there may be some redeployment, it seems that there are likely to be about 300 redundancies.
Those people—whether or not they return to work and irrespective of their situation—would look askance at the scale of the compensation payments which the hon. Member for Oldham, West has suggested. As with so


many Socialists, he is being fair to his friends but is disregarding all those whom it does not suit him to consider at the time.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West and his friends, inside and outside Parliament, in the unions and elsewhere, have connived at and supported a situation by which the dock labour scheme has continued to work to the disadvantage of the nation, to increase the costs of British industry and to threaten the position of the scheme ports. The hon. Gentleman is cast in the role of Samson. Not having brought the structure down by the direct method, he now awaits the conclusion of the scheme so that he can bring the whole lot crashing down around him. Redundancy payments on the scale he proposes would be the best way of achieving the destruction of the scheme ports which he claims to support.
This debate, as it should be, is about redundancy, but it is possible to over-emphasise the redundancy issue—to strain it beyond equity and prudence—for we must remember that there is work to be done in the docks. That work should be done in scheme ports released from the present clamping and confining scheme—

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: rose—

Mr. Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am about to conclude my remarks.
They should be released from the confines of the scheme and be free to get on with their job of serving the nation's business.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am pleased to have this opportunity—

Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that it is usual for the Chair to call to speak an hon. Member from one side of the House followed by an hon. Member from the other side. I am wondering whether you consider it fair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call, following the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is a supporter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), a member of the SLD, who also supports the Bill. Should not the hon. Member for Gordon be considered to be on the Government side from the point of view of debating the proposed new clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the point that the hon. Member has made and, having made it, I trust that he will not push his luck.

Mr. Bruce: I feel sure that those remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will come home to haunt him on other occasions.
I support the Bill, although I find it extraordinary that it should have taken the Government 10 years to introduce it. Indeed, in the last few months they have still been actively defending the scheme. It is now a subject on which they have permitted their Back Benchers to let rip. The scheme must be phased out in such a way that it is quick and clean. As well as removing the restrictive practice, we must be fair to those who remain in the scheme at the end, and that is the nub of the debate on the new clause.
The points of equity that have been raised are important, and I assure Labour Members that I appreciate

that many of them are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and have dock workers, whom they wish to protect, in their constituencies. I do not dispute their sincerity in doing that, but they must also remember that there are many working people in their constituencies who feel that the scheme has gone on for too long and that they have been disadvantaged as a result of it. In those circumstances, there is a danger that they will alienate their supporters.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me which of his constituents, apart from employers, have said that the dock labour scheme has gone on too long? Why are his constituents disadvantaged?

Mr. Bruce: In a sense, I am grateful for that intervention. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the conflict that arose within the scheme meant that we nearly lost our fish market for good. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that would not have been a disaster for Aberdeen and its port as well as for his constituents and mine, I do not know what would be.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. He said that his constituents feel that the scheme has gone on for too long and that they are being disadvantaged by it. If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond in detail on the issue of the fish market. Which of his constituents, apart from employers, have said that the scheme has gone on too long and that they are disadvantaged? None of them is covered by Aberdeen harbour board.

Mr. Bruce: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not regard employers as valid constituents. I do. Employers have told me that they think the scheme has gone on too long, and I think that those employers represent an important part of the constituency. They employ people, including some of my constituents. Their inability to expand employment in circumstances in which Aberdeen, as a scheme port, is disadvantaged adversely affects the interests of my constituents.
I am not quarrelling with the right of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to take a different view. I respect him for his view. However, as constituency Members of Parliament, we are elected to make our own judgments as to what we believe, in the light of local knowledge and local circumstances, is in the best interests of our constituents and our community. As I have said, the phasing out of the scheme is desirable for the port of Aberdeen and for ancillary employment in and around the area.
Obviously, I am speaking not only as a constituency Member. However, I have the greatest knowledge about the area I represent. We have seen the development of ports competing with Aberdeen. That is true in other parts of the country such as Montrose and Peterhead. I want the ports to expand. There is room for Aberdeen, Montrose and Peterhead to develop their business. I should like to see the day, soon, when they will be able to compete on a fair and equal footing.
Having said that, and with due deference to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), the point which is relevant to the debate on the new clause is that it is important to complete this process fairly, justly and


honourably. I think that the Government have recognised the need to do that and have proposed a scheme which, at least on the face of it, seems to be reasonable. It provides for a maximum of £35,000 and an estimated total of about £25 million. Obviously, that depends on how many people are made redundant and how many are redeployed.
An important and relevant point needs to be made and it supports the basic reasoning behind the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Both sides of the House admit that the average age of the remaining registered dockers is relatively high. It may be true that some of the dockers who are paid compensation will be re-employed the next day, but it is also true that some may never work again. The House should ensure that the scheme provides justice for those people. After all, they have stayed in a scheme that has given them continuity and security over a considerable period of time.
The thrust of the new clause, which tots up redundancy payments according to length of service and, by implication, the age of the individual concerned, gets the balance right. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the new clause is not perfect. Indeed, it is flawed. However, the Government would do well, given that they have taken 10 years to introduce legislation to abolish the scheme, to say that the settlement of the matter should be done fairly. After all, they introduced the Bill on the same day as they introduced a White Paper, they forced the Bill into Committee and then guillotined it and they have tabled no amendments of their own. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for them to ensure that the process is carried out in a way that minimises bitterness and maximises equity to all concerned and ensures that the transition is achieved without an extremely damaging dock strike.
I believe—I hope that I am right—that whatever utterances are made in the House, nobody wants a dock strike and nobody believes that such a strike would be desirable for the British economy or good for the ports or the workers. It would be helpful if the Government would say that, in the light of that, given that this is a final settlement and that they have taken so long to bring it about, they would tilt the balance of the scheme to ensure that those who have worked in the industry for a long time and have little prospect of being re-employed have a more generous settlement than is proposed now. However, as I have said, the general thrust of the Government's proposals are not unreasonable.
In those circumstances, the Government could have responded with a little more grace to the principle behind the new clause. It would help to ensure that the Bill leaves the House with my support—I do not qualify that—and with the feeling that the Government have shown some sensitivity and have tried to ensure that confrontation is removed. It would also help to achieve fairness and justice while removing a debilitating and restrictive practice that has existed for too long in circumstances that compensate those affected and liberate the scheme ports to compete fairly with other ports in the country.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Member for Gordon, (Mr. Bruce) suffers from the fact that he was not a member of the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was a member of the Committee but he rarely paid a visit to it so he was not able to report what was going on. The hon. Member for Gordon may be interested to know that in Committee, the

Labour party moved an amendment to increase the compensation to about £70,000. In the short time of two or three weeks since then, the Opposition have upped the ante by another £60,000. At the rate we are going, if the Bill is not on the statute book quickly, the Labour party will be prepared to offer £1 million by the end of the summer. The hon. Member for Gordon should remember that the Government are making an offer to dock workers which is considerably in excess of what has been offered to them in the past. I shall come back to the figures of the severance opportunities available under the Labour Government.
It is important to place on record the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has admitted, during interventions in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, that the new clause does not make sense and does not bear out the Opposition's intention. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has been in the House since 1970 and it is no good for him to claim that he does not have the resources or that he did not understand. He has admitted that the drafting is defective, but is still going ahead with it and intending to vote for it. He cannot then complain when my right hon. Friend the Minister points out that the new clause is defective. It would ensure that everybody made redundant or who chooses to leave the dock labour scheme for any reason would be entitled to up to £130,000 in a pay-off. Clearly, that is nonsense. People leave their jobs every day of the week and they are not able to collect £130,000 from the taxpayer or their employer. That is the purpose of the new clause, and I am surprised at the hon. Member for Oldham, West, having discovered and admitted that it is stupid and that he has made a mistake, being willing to press on with the debate and to press the new clause to a Division.
If law making is about anything, it must be about making sensible laws. The Opposition have been caught out and have been slipshod in their drafting, but it surprises me that they insist on continuing.
It is important to look at the issue of jobs for life. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred to that before leaving the Chamber. The simple fact is that the scheme did provide a job for life. It is no use pointing to the fact that the number of dockers in the scheme has diminished. It has diminished only as a result of voluntary redundancy. No docker who wishes to remain in the scheme has been forced to leave. That has been the problem. Those who like a cushy life and enjoy bobbing off to be a taxi driver or those who enjoy ghosting or want to sit in a portakabin at Grangemouth watching a colour television set to overcome the boredom that might result, have stayed within the scheme. That is why the average age of dockers in the scheme has increased over the years and that is why the scheme is described as giving jobs for life. Unless dockers choose to leave the scheme, they are in the scheme and on the gravy train for as long as they want.
Now Labour Members suggest that the amount of money that dockers receive should be increased considerably over the amount proposed by the Government. What is interesting is that when Labour Members had the power to determine those matters, they were not that generous. In 1975, the maximum severance payment was £5,250. Since January 1987, it has been £25,000, which is an increase of 376 per cent. in 12 years, mainly under a Conservative Government. In special circumstances, it may be necessary for employers to pay up


to £35,000. Already under this Government, severance payments have been increased considerably and the Bill proposes to raise the limit to £35,000. When the Opposition had it in their power to decide the limit, they put it at £5,250, so how can they consider that the Government are being ungenerous in putting the figure up to £35,000?
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Gordon, in the usual Liberal tradition, split the difference and said we should give a bit more money. When the Lib-Lab pact was in existence for two years, there was no increase. The then Government kept the maximum severance payment at the same level. That contrasts with the Government's proposals in the Bill.
It ill behoves dockers in the scheme to complain about receiving £35,000 and to say that it is not a good pay-off when one considers the productivity and industrial relations record of the dock labour scheme. Since 1967, more than 4 million working days have been lost because of disputes in scheme ports. Since 1967, there have been 3,569 disputes in scheme ports. The number of days lost per year by dockers in scheme ports in 1988 was 10,663, which is 1,105 days lost per 1,000 employees, compared with 164 for all industries and services. The strike record for registered dock workers is more than five times as bad as that for the rest of industry. Yet the Opposition are saying that, after the dockers have had a lifetime of bobbing off and ghosting, after an appalling strike and industrial relations record and after a time when the Labour Government themselves were prepared to pay only £5,000, compared with this Government's offer of £35,000, we should up the ante, first to £70,000 and, three weeks later, to a suggested £130,000.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I apologise for coming in late and hearing only the end of my hon. Friend's speech. The record is not bad everywhere. In Southampton, it has improved greatly over the past few years since the leaders of the dockers in Southampton took advantage of the very generous severance payments to which my hon. Friend referred, and ceased to be dockers in Southampton. They were therefore not eligible for re-employment as dockers anywhere else, so they took jobs on Merseyside, where they are now employed as industrial relations advisers. I can imagine nothing more guaranteed to ensure that Southampton has the edge over Liverpool when it comes to getting business henceforth.

Mr. Bennett: Everywhere in the country has the edge over Liverpool when it comes to strike records and industrial relations. It is interesting—

Mr. Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. As a former dock worker, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows about the strike record in Liverpool better than anyone else does. He has been an agitator in Liverpool docks and the reason that Liverpool is such an appalling—

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not unparliamentary for one hon. Member in his conceited ignorance to call another hon. Member an agitator, as has just happened?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not heard anything unparliamentary.

Mr. Bennett: I am surprised that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) believes that the term "agitator" is an insult in the Labour party. I always thought that it was an accolade there and guaranteed the reselection of Labour Members. We all know about the industrial relations record of Liverpool and the reason why Speke has gone down the plughole. We know about the appalling strike record in the car industry and the docks. I do not want lectures from the hon. Member for Garston about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) spoke about Southampton. In the past two or three weeks, negotiations have been taking place in Southampton while the ballot has been carried out. Mr. Harryman, the Transport and General Workers Union shop steward there, has been censured by his union for trying to come to a local agreement about what happens at Southampton after the scheme comes to an end. It is sensible for a trade union official to recognise that the scheme is coming to an end, by the will of Parliament, and to get round the table to talk with the employers about how the port's future can be assured.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I was a member of the Committee on the Bill. We have, no doubt, four or five hours ahead of us when we shall hear contributions from Conservative Members which will reflect their comments in Committee. The ministerial team has changed yet again because it was so weak, disjointed and hopeless that it has been necessary to draft in Ministers on an almost daily basis. They are incompetent and cannot handle their brief. The Chairman of the Committee had to lecture the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) because he was not doing his job.
We should therefore not be surprised about what we have seen in this debate. This debate is a continuation of the double act that the Tories have been running throughout the Bill. The straight man leads off, then the clowns come on behind. The clown who has just spoken, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) was a member of the Committee. He has been joined here by other clowns who have been on other Bills, while he clowned around on this Bill.
Another clown is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who stands up and says, "I am a friend of the dockers and I am fighting for the dock industry." Last night, this clown was so concerned about the dockers that he moved the Third Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill formally and did not say another word. That is the extent of his concern about the docks and what has happened to them. It is just one more example of how the Conservatives have attempted to steamroller legislation on to the statute book.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made a point that needs to be dealt with immediately. He said that, under new clause 1, dockers could take a bonus and then immediately take a post somewhere else. That is also true under the Government's proposals. Under the Bill, there is nothing to stop a registered docker taking redundancy and then taking employment as a docker down the road or even with his previous employer. Let me put that on the record. The only difference between our proposal and the


Government's is that, because we have a little bit more experience of work than the clowns have, we understand some of the problems.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment should ensure that people are trained properly and that they have jobs to look forward to, rather than the dole queue. I am disappointed that he did not deal with some of the points I raised. He knows that the Select Committee on Employment has identified the over-50s as a special category, yet neither he, the Secretary of State for Employment nor the Minister of State dealt with those comments in Committee. I went through the Select Committee's comments in Committee and they are relevant to this debate. The Select Committee referred to life expectancy, the fact that an increasingly large part of the population is made up of the elderly and the nature of work. It also pointed out that there are people who discriminate against the elderly.
It is worth remembering who is discriminating against who, because the fat cats sitting on the Government Front Bench all earn more in a single year than they are proposing to pay to the dockers whom they will make redundant and send to the labour exchanges—

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Ross: Sit down.
Each of those Ministers earns more in a single year than they are proposing to give to redundant dockers, but there is no way in which we shall allow them to get away with that without at least attempting to increase the sum—

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Ross: I should like to give way to my hon. Friend but there is not much time and we have a guillotine. I hope that we can have one more comment from the Minister in answer to some of the points that were not answered in Committee, because I should like to hear some answers tonight.
We are expecting the Government to say a little more. Once they have given the generous handout of £35,000, what will happen to the dockers? Does it mean that they will be on the dole for the rest of their lives, because if it does, I advise the Government that £35,000 does not go very far and that we shall not let them get away with it. We want more information.
The hon. Member for Daventry also said that there was unfairness. He is right—there is an unfairness. If my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) had caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he would have identified the unfairness that exists right now. That lot on the Conservative Benches have been conspiring with dock employers to ensure that people such as the Aberdeen fish lumpers are leaving employment now under much worse conditions than those that will apply when the Bill receives Royal Assent. There is a conspiracy among Conservative Members and a lack of concern about those people who were convinced that they should take redundancy. Because of the difference made by one day, two people who work together in Aberdeen and who have applied for redundancy will get different terms. Any worker who did not know about the Government's plans and who applied for redundancy under the old terms will not be allowed to withdraw his application so that he can take advantage of the new scheme.
The peroration of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was about the only peroration that we have heard from his party because his hon. Friends were absolutely silent throughout the Committee stage. He reminded me, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, of a fish person gutting a cod because of the way in which he said, "Let's be quick and clean and get rid of it." We are talking about human beings. We do not want to hear about a quick, clean end to the scheme, because we know that there will be problems long after its abolition. The hon. Member for Gordon got his just and appropriate reward in the treatment given to him by the hon. Member for Pembroke, who was the resident clown on the Committee.
If there was one thing that differentiated the Opposition and the Government sides of the Committee, it was that at least we tried. It may very well be that the wording of this new clause is not correct, but if it is not, would it not have made much more sense for the Minister to say, "I accept the intention of the new clause and if it is withdrawn, I will introduce an amendment or a new clause in another place to improve on the redundancy terms that are on offer at present so that some of the problems that the Opposition have identified can be dealt with"?
Unless we hear tonight that the Government will do something to ensure that the so-called generous payment that the Government are giving to the 46·7-year-old dockers who will leave the industry and who may never work again is supplemented by some training programme or some other provision to ensure that the redundancy payment is not all that they will receive from this Government or from any other Government for the rest of their lives, we shall pursue the new clause to a vote. It is clear that the Government do not care. We have a responsibility to speak for the dockers who will be made redundant.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) clearly identified, because of the intentions of those people who are at present constrained by the dock labour scheme, 2,000 dockers are now facing the sack. As soon as the Bill is given the Royal Assent, those 2,000 people will be left to the labour exchanges. We shall fight for as long and as hard as we possibly can, both here and in the other place, to ensure that those people get the maximum reward for the effort that they have put in to make our docks so successful.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was the most appalling insult to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I have heard that on the Committee the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was one of the more entertaining Labour Members. To say that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is funnier or more peculiar than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is an insult. I hope that those Labour Members will sort themselves out, because that sort of disagreement brings the Labour party into disrepute.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West also referred to the fact that 650 registered dockers per year over the next three years might take severance and be made redundant. Since 1983—over the past five or six years, which is the sort of period that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would use—840 registered dockers per yea- have been taking severance. Therefore, our proposals will mean


a reduction in the numbers leaving the industry—or rather, leaving the registered docks work side of the industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: When I was a Minister at the Department of Employment, I remember the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) personally trying to resolve some of the disputes that were then threatening the future of Aberdeen. I pay tribute to him for that before giving way to him.

Mr. Hughes: After that, I am sorry to have to ask this question, but I must still put it to the Minister. What is the position of the fish market porters in Aberdeen who have no employer at the moment because, as was pointed out in Committee, the fish landing company went out of existence on 24 April? Are those people who are still working on a temporary licence with Aberdeen harbour board entitled to £35,000, or are they being pegged back to £25,000?

Mr. Bottomley: As I have been away from this subject for some time, I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer to his question, although I do not think that it will affect his vote on the new clause. I shall see whether an answer can be given to him during our subsequent debates this evening, because he has raised a serious point that deserves an answer.
We are considering a ghost new clause and I suspect that, by the time we come to vote on it, no one will actually vote for it, with the possible exceptions of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and his hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Dundee, West. Indeed, the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who moved the new clause, acknowledged that it does not do what he had hoped it would do—

Mr. Meacher: I did not say that.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Oldham, West also acknowledged that by tabling amendment No. 3, which would get rid of existing clause 5, many of the protections that British dock workers would want to have would be swept away. I ask Opposition Members to consider what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who dealt both with the serious points and with the new clause that was tabled semi-seriously by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
The proposal in the new clause is that a registered dock worker with 20 years' service, who leaves the industry for any reason whatsoever, should receive £66,000. We are dealing with a suggestion that a registered dock worker who leaves the industry for any reason after 30 years' service should get £96,000 and a registered dock worker with 40 years' service should get £126,000. That is the consequence of the simple arithmetic of the new clause.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke pointed out, when one considers the £5,000 that was available when the Labour party was last in government and the £25,000 and the other figures on offer now, one must realise that there has been a significant increase.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: It would probably be better if I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I acknowledge that he has been present for most of the debate. I am not sure that there is time for me to give way to him, but if I run out of things to say before six o'clock—in two minutes' time—perhaps I shall give way to him.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Pembroke have treated the debate seriously. We want to see thriving ports that will compete equally. The proposals in clause 5 are that the ports should not compete equally for three years between the time of Royal Assent and the date on which the transitional arrangements come to an end, because the scheme ports will still have taxpayer contributions towards redundancies. That is the kind of competitive advantage that will die away at the end of the three years. It is right that there should be transitional arrangements in moving from the dock labour scheme to the post-dock labour scheme position. That is the argument for looking at the distortion that we now face.
Some hon. Members asked whether those in the docks industry would be treated worse than those in the mining industry. Let me give some examples. A mineworker aged 27 with 11 years' service will receive a payment of £6,648. A docker in those circumstances—although, of course, there are probably no dockers that young with that length of service—would receive a payment of £27,000 if made redundant in the first 18 months after Royal Assent, or £16,000 if made redundant in the second 18-month period. Further, a miner aged 32 with 16 years' service will receive £17,468; a similar docker with similar service would receive the maximum payments of £35,000 or £20,000. It is important that we remember that the comparisons suggest that the transitional redundancy arrangements following Royal Assent are reasonably fair.
I recognise the point that was made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who made a reasonably constructed speech although he did not make the case for the severely increased sums which are the aim of the new clause so inadequately expressed by the Labour party. At least there is agreement throughout the House, between the Labour party, the Social and Liberal Democratic party and the Conservative party, about the way in which the new clause was drafted. Its arithmetic goes far, too far, and when taken with amendment No. 3, its consequences are totally wrong. The House knows that the new clause is unacceptable. On some points, it acts to the disadvantage of former registered dock workers. No other worker is entitled to such generous terms. The clause has no logic, merit or friends. I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Bermingham: The Minister would not answer a simple question. If one is 55, has 10 years working life left and is getting a maximum of £35,000—

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [8 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 184 Noes 258.

Division No. 212]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Allen, Graham
Armstrong, Hilary


Anderson, Donald
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy






Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Howells, Geraint


Barron, Kevin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Battle, John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp;R'dish)
Illsley, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Ingram, Adam


Bidwell, Sydney
Janner, Greville


Blair, Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp;Deeside)


Blunkett, David
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Boyes, Roland
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bradley, Keith
Kennedy, Charles


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lamond, James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Leadbitter, Ted


Buckley, George J.
Leighton, Ron


Caborn, Richard
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Callaghan, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Litherland, Robert


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Loyden, Eddie


Cartwright, John
McAllion, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McCartney, Ian


Clay, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clelland, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Coleman, Donald
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cousins, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Cummings, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dalyell, Tam
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Darling, Alistair
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Meale, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp;Bute)


Dobson, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Doran, Frank
Morley, Elliott


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mullin, Chris


Eadie, Alexander
Murphy, Paul


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, Dave


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Faulds, Andrew
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Parry, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter L.


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Primarolo, Dawn


Fraser, John
Radice, Giles


Galloway, George
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Redmond, Martin


George, Bruce
Richardson, Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robertson, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rogers, Allan


Gordon, Mildred
Rooker, Jeff


Gould, Bryan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Grocott, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Hardy, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sedgemore, Brian


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Henderson, Doug
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp;Kilsyth)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)





Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Brian


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Gavin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Straw, Jack
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wray, Jimmy


Vaz, Keith
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Joan



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Frank Haynes, and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Amos, Alan
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forman, Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Benyon, W.
Franks, Cecil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, George


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp;Cl't's)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hanley, Jeremy


Buck, Sir Antony
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carrington, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Churchill, Mr
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunt, John (Ravensboune)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp;Spald'g)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine






Key, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kilfedder, James
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, Sir William


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mans, Keith
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marlow, Tony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Speller, Tony


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Squire, Robin


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Iain
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Miscampbell, Norman
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Summerson, Hugo


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neale, Gerrard
Thorne, Neil


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Walters, Sir Dennis


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Ward, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Price, Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Redwood, John
Wilshire, David


Renton, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rossi, Sir Hugh



Rost, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Ryder, Richard
and Mr. John Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

DISSOLUTION OF NATIONAL DOCK LABOUR BOARD

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
`but no such order shall be made until a body has been established which will make provision for the training and welfare of dock workers (formerly within the Scheme) and port medical facilities'.

The amendment seeks to establish a body which will take over the training and medical functions of the National Dock Labour Board when it is abolished under the Bill.
The Government have repeatedly refused to elaborate on the arrangements that will follow the abolition of the board. Indeed, it is the issue of what will follow the abolition of the board and the dock labour scheme that is at the heart of the dispute between the National Association of Port Employers and the Transport and General Workers Union. The union is concerned about the threat of casualisation and wishes to secure a collective agreement that covers job security. The union has also expressed its wish to secure arrangements—again involving the union—which would cover the training and the medical facilities provided by the board. Those were among the issues raised by the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union at the union's meeting with the port employers on 18 April.
It is as well to understand that, under the agreement, we are not seeking to perpetuate the dock labour scheme. It is not a device to replace the scheme with a new scheme, because the kernel of the dock labour scheme is the monopoly employment aspect, which is the element of the scheme that requires that only registered employers can be responsible for dock work at our ports and that only registered dockers can carry out the work. That monopoly will go with the Bill and the amendment will not reinstate it. That is not to say that we do not share the union's concerns about the threat of casualisation—we certainly do. It must be said that the employers' record post-Devlin, when they gave certain undertakings in relation to casual work that were not sustained, fully justifies the suspicions of the union and of the individual registered dockers.
6.15 pm
In the amendment we are dealing with the provision of a body to provide for training after the abolition of the board and to maintain the medical centres which are already operated by the National Dock Labour Board. It is as well to acknowledge the value of the existing training arrangements. There are two training bases, one at Liverpool and one at Tilbury, each with a chief instructor and, I believe, about six training instructors. Those instructors must be mobile, because they cover a substantial area of the country. We have always argued that the quality of training provided by the NDLB is high and that that is a resource which should not be dissipated and lost.
We were not at all reassured by the Government's statements in Committee. The Under-Secretary, at about 11 o'clock at night, when dealing with the existing facilities, said:
We must be clear about what training is available in the scheme ports. In 1987, there were 21 instructors and some £500,000 a year was spent on training; this year there are 14 mobile instructors, working within the scheme ports, and there are no longer training centres. How much training does that amount to? In 1987, a total of 1,498 training weeks were given, and that provided—on average—less than half a week per trainee.
Of course, those training centres have long since ceased to exist.
The Under-Secretary at a later stage said:
Employers will need to ensure that their employees are properly trained. If they are not, the work will not get done.
The Under-Secretary further said:


Employers will be unable to run their businesses as successfully by operating with untrained people.
Therefore, I do not apologise for saying that after the scheme is repealed, it will be the employers' responsibility to ensure that proper training takes place."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 213.]
That is the guts of the issue. The Government have repeatedly refused to give any indication of what arrangements will exist, if any, at national level following the abolition of the dock labour hoard. We believe that it would be very much against the interests of the industry if this national facility was dissipated, split up between the employers, or simply wiped out, no doubt through redundancy.
We ask the Minister to tell us precisely where the Government stand on the issue. Is it really their intention to destroy that national training facility? I am not suggesting that the body we are seeking to establish would have responsibility only for training in the scheme ports. Of course, the logic of the Bill is that the distinction between the scheme and non-scheme ports for all practical purposes will no longer exist. I should have thought that there would be a case for building on that national training facility and making it available to all the ports.
Some of the non-scheme ports, particularly the smaller ones, already make use of the NDLB training facilities. I admit that that accounts for only a very small proportion of the training provided by the NDLB. Nevertheless, it is significant that some of the non-scheme ports consider it to be an advantage to use the training facilities provided by the NDLB.
The amendment is a most constructive proposal. Instead of destroying a training facility and the experience of the training organisation—and that is what is really important—the Government should be prepared to accept the principle of a new national facility and organisation to take over the responsibility for training in scheme and also non-scheme ports.
Even this Government have accepted the principle that they have a role to play in training. It is common ground between the Labour party and the Government that this country's record on training falls a long way short of that of many of our competitors—and certainly short of that of many countries in the European Community. It should be a matter of concern for the Government, the Opposition, employers, trade unions and local authorities to try to improve the quality of training for the unemployed and, in this context, to improve the training for employed people to whom the vast bulk of the training to which I am referring is directed.
In the context of the Government's training policies as outlined in their document "Employment for the 1990s", the establishment of the Training Agency and arrangements for the training and enterprise councils, the Government should accept the principle that the public sector should play a part in trying to ensure that training takes place. The state should act as an enabler, or catalyst, in that respect.
It is indisputable that a national training scheme would benefit efficiency and health and safety in industry. We have had a great deal of discussion already in Committee about health and safety. We are all well aware that separate regulations apply to health and safety which cover scheme and non-scheme ports.
Undoubtedly docks are dangerous places. An important part of training is to ensure that dockers can

operate the sophisticated and expensive equipment in the docks in a way which is safe for them and for their workmates.
It cannot be right to wipe out this training facility, which is such an asset to the industry. The same applies, although perhaps with less force, to the medical centres. I accept that there is scope for some rationalisation and for different provision. In some instances the medical facilities are some way from the ports and some of the centres have not been utilised of late to the extent that they were used in the past. However, the principle is still valid. The medical facilities should not be wiped out or handed over to the employers. They should be maintained and operated in a way that will benefit dockers and the industry generally.
It is remarkable that not even the staff in the training and medical facilities have any idea what is in store for them. Will the training facilities be wiped out? Will the staff be made compulsorily redundant? Is that the Government's intention? We have just had a debate about the compensation arrangements which might prevail for registered dockers. What about the compensation arrangements for training staff and all the other people involved with the national dock labour scheme?
The Government have said that we should not simply be concerned about compensation arrangements for registered dockers, but that we should also be concerned about compensation for other staff involved in the scheme. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will tell us precisely what arrangements will apply for people involved in the training function of the NDLB. Many of those people have substantial commitments. We might argue that, because they must be mobile—some have moved from one part of the country to another and taken on large mortgages to act as training instructors—therefore they are as much in need of substantial compensation if they are to lose their jobs as any other group of workers.
We are not advocating redundancies. The talents of those people should be deployed within the framework of a new organisation for the benefit of the port industry. There is no disagreement between the Opposition and the Government with regard to efficiency, productivity and using new investment most effectively. Training is an essential element of all that. Against a background of the Government's intransigence since the publication of the White Paper, it would be sensible and an excellent development if the Government gave some sign that they were prepared to make some provision to follow the national dock labour scheme and maintain the training functions, medical and welfare facilities provided by the NDLB.
We have in mind a body which would involve the trade unions. We favour joint determination along the lines which exist in the NDLB, where the employers and the union are equally represented. We believe that the best can be obtained from training and from all the other functions if there is maximum representation from the work force working fully with employer representatives. That is the great strength of the present NDLB facilities. They have the support of the employers and the trade union, because the trade union is directly involved in the organisation which is ultimately responsible for the training facility, the NDLB.
We strongly advocate that there should be a national body to take over the training and medical functions and


that that national body, whatever its details, should include equal participation of the employers and the union. It is in the interests of the docks that training should involve the maximum participation of the trade union.
There can be no dispute about the importance which trade unions attach to training. Most trade unions have separate training departments and are involved in providing training facilities to help their members obtain employment or, in other cases, to retrain and become more employable. The main responsibility lies with industry and with the Government. The trade unions have an excellent record on training and we want that to be encouraged. We should maintain the arrangements whereby there is co-determination and joint control of the training arrangements and medical facilities.
When we read about these issues in the British press, we might almost believe that the national dock labour scheme was unique to Britain and that it was an eccentric development. That is not the case. Many other advanced countries have found it necessary to have a scheme similar to the national dock labour scheme. France, Italy and Spain have schemes. They are not necessarily identical to our schemes, but it is amazing how many of those schemes include the principle of the register. They control employment in the docks with the aim of preventing casual labour and all that goes with it, including insecurity and exploitation.
We are not advocating something impractical or unreasonable, but simply seeking to make the best of the position that will exist post the enactment of the scheme. We, and the trade union, accept that the legislation will be enacted, and the debate is about the arrangements that will follow the national dock labour scheme. There must be national arrangements as well as local ones.
This evening, we want an end to stalling about what is to replace the national dock labour scheme. We want an end to the nonsense that is talked about everything being broken up and the issues being decided by individual ports. There is no way that some of the smaller ports, either within or without the scheme, will be able to run proper training schemes.
6.30 pm
The Government have an obligation to ensure that there is a national training scheme, which will be used not only by the major ports and employers, as at present, but will be available to the smaller ports and employers, which have no chance of operating their own training schemes. It would be unreasonable to leave their training facilities to the whim of the larger employers, with whom they are in competition.
Even under the terms of the Government's own approach to this matter and to maintaining and encouraging competition in the industry, there is an overwhelming need for a national training facility. The amendment is aimed to achieve that and I hope that the Government will see fit to accept the argument in principle.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): In the next few minutes I shall attempt to answer the substantial points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr.

Strang). With the leave of the House, I shall attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later in the debate to sum up and address hon. Members' contributions.
The purpose of the Bill is to bring employment arrangements in scheme ports within the general legal framework which has evolved under successive Governments since the scheme's inception. Those developments include the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which placed specific obligations on employers to make adequate provision for health, safety and welfare. The Act also provided for proper participation by trade unions, at national and local level, in ensuring adequate arrangements.
There are now also a range of training structures which industries may choose to participate in according to their own assessment of needs. Within that framework. It is clearly for employers and employees in the industry to decide what suits them best, as is the case in any other industry.
By contrast, the amendment would impose on former scheme ports a special national structure covering welfare, training and medical facilities. No case has been made for that structure, which does not exist in any other industry, either in Committee or today. The proposition which should be made is that what has to be done is special, not only to this industry, but to ports which were formerly within the scheme.

Mr. Strang: I made it clear that we believe that it would make sense for that national body to provide a training facility for all ports. However, the nature of the Bill is such that we can table an amendment that covers only ports within the scheme. If any such body were established, it should be extended to have responsibility for training throughout the industry as a whole.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that matter. He worked on the supposition, which I do not accept, that it is only within some sort of overall national framework that the considerations with which he is concerned could be properly addressed.
That type of structure is unnecessary and will inhibit port employers' acceptance of full responsibility for their own training, health and welfare provision. It would also extend, quite unnecessarily, the transitional period, during which the board is under a duty to wind up its affairs, and the cost of an extension would obviously have to be borne by the taxpayer.
I do not understand the reluctance of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East to accept the normal health, safety and welfare provisions that already apply to non scheme-ports, and their belief that they are inapplicable to scheme ports. The structures that already apply in non-scheme ports are particularly comprehensive. The abolition of the scheme will not change the basis of health and safety provision which applies to all ports.
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places an obligation to make proper health, safety and welfare provision on individual employers generally, and not on the board—certainly not on any other body established to take its place.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If what the Minister says about the provision of such regulations in non-scheme ports is true, will he assist me on the re-emergence of casual dock work in my constituency of Port Glasgow? Will he instuct his officials to inspect


casual dock work in the port of Port Glasgow to protect my casually employed constituents vis-a-vis their rights and regulations? Will he intervene in that way?

Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about casualism. A fear of casualism has run throughout this debate. It featured strongly in Committee. From what I have seen, I have no doubt that that almost inherited fear of the evils of casualism, as it existed at the turn of the century and thereafter, which runs through—

Mr. Robert Hughes: It still exists.

Mr. Nicholls: I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, and if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) wants to make an intervention other than from the sedentary position, I shall oblige him.
It is clear that the fear of casualism gravely concerns many dockers who protest against the abolition of this scheme.
Often, Minister have to make forecasts about what will happen in the future if their views are correct. This case is different: we do not have to make some great leap into the dark because we do not know what will happen about casualism when the scheme is abolished because a port structure outside the scheme already exists in this country. The casualism rate there is no more than 6 per cent. Hon. Members may say that, even at 6 per cent., that is a bad business.
I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—if I am incorrect I shall give way at once—that I know of no industrial action organised by the Transport and General Workers Union in non-scheme ports to protest at the casualism rate. Today's modern port industry has extremely valuable, expensive and sophisticated equipment that could not possibly be run on a casual basis, and well over 90 per cent. of employers who operate in scheme ports have made it clear that there will be no return to casual systems of work. Those factors mean that, for once, a Minister does not have to look into his crystal ball but can talk about what is actually happening in non-scheme ports. That should be a substantial reassurance, although I suspect that he will not think it is, to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I asked for his assistance in a matter concerning casual dock work, which began again in Port Glasgow before Christmas. Young unemployed men are being paid £2·50 per hour to work as casual dockers. I do not ask much from this Government, especially for my country of Scotland, and all I ask of the Minister and his colleagues is to request his officials to inspect the practice to assure me that my constituents, who have taken up the work because they are unemployed, are protected by the regulations of which he spoke about five minutes ago.

Mr. Nicholls: It may be that my memory is defective. The hon. Gentleman refers to practices that started before Christmas, and it is now summer. I cannot recall the hon. Gentleman writing to me about it. If he is telling me that scheme ports are now faced with the use of non-registered dockers, which, as the law presently stands, would be in breach of the criminal law, obviously such matters must be looked at.
However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman is making a different point: that events in his constituency show that casualism is about to take off. I accept that his is a genuine fear, but there is no evidence to support it. If it were realistic, it would be remarkable, to put it at its lowest, that the Transport and General Workers Union has not been protesting.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is taking up his own time and that of his hon. Friends. I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, but IL see that he is now shaking his head. It would probably be provocative of me to say that I had satisfied an Opposition Member, and I suspect that it would also be thoroughly untrue.
The Dock Regulations 1988, made under the 1974 Act, provide comprehensive, up-to-date and detailed provision specifically for dock work. Such detailed provision is unusual for a specific industry. It was proposed by the Health and Safety Commission, which, as I am sure the House does not need to be reminded, is a tripartite body including trade union representatives. The regulations cover welfare provision—for example, sanitary facilities and protective clothing—which the board currently supervises under the Docks and Harbours Act 1966. In some respects, notably in connection with protective clothing, they are more comprehensive than the earlier provisions.
The board's medical provision, which predates that of the National Health Service, makes special arrangements for registered dock workers which to a large extent now duplicate existing services. The present provision consists of 20 small medical centres serving 18 ports. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has reminded us, they provide treatment both related and unrelated to the needs of the workplace. Since 1982, all employers have been under an obligation to make adequate provision for first aid, consistent with the risks and needs of the industry in which they operate and in accordance with first aid regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

Mr. Loyden: As the Minister will know—the point was raised a number times in Committee—the docks industry has particular problems connected with both safety and the provision of medical services: for instance, the distance from the dock of the nearest hospital. Past provision has taken into account the peculiar nature of the industry, and its virtual isolation from life in the city. Requirements have been established in response to real needs. I hope that the Minister is not forgetting that.

Mr. Nicholls: I am not forgetting it at all, but, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's evident concern, he makes the mistake of thinking that such problems are unique. He ignores the fact that non-scheme ports often operate with the same coastal facilities as scheme ports. They have grown up because of the need for unrestricted ports. The hon. Gentleman assumes that there is no pattern from which we can learn, and that it might be in the interests of employers not to make appropriate arrangements with the work force when the scheme is finally abolished. Employers in non-scheme ports have


had to make arrangements appropriate to individual ports and work forces, and there is no reason to believe that the same will not happen in former scheme ports.
Clause 2 gives the board the opportunity to dispose of its assets, including its medical centres, in such a way as to encourage continued provision to meet the future needs of the industry and its legal requirements. It provides for local needs to be matched with local medical provision for all dock workers.
It must not be assumed that the establishment of a single body is the best way in which to meet the industry's training needs. It is not up to me to pass judgment on what arrangements are appropriate for each port, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East seemed to think that a national structure would be the only option, and I do not think that that case has been made.
Training must respond to the needs of individual firms, and it is up to employers to make arrangements for it, whether they do so individually or collectively. The work being done in a modern, capital-intensive port requires a highly skilled work force, and employers therefore have every incentive to make proper training arrangements.
6.45 pm
The abolition of the scheme's restrictions on the deployment of dock workers means that investment in training will produce an even greater return. Non-scheme ports manage to train to meet their skill needs without the imposition of a national body. In 1988, Felixstowe, which has its own training school, spent about £775,000 on training—rather more than the National Dock Labour Board spent on behalf of all the scheme ports put together. Many other non-scheme ports, notably those run by Sealink, have full-time training officers. The board's training activities now amount to a mobile force of about 20 training instructors, without any training centres.
The provision in clause 2 for the disposal of the board's assets provides every opportunity for the industry to take over such useful provision as exists. There is no reason to believe, judging by the performance of non-scheme ports, that former scheme ports will not take training extremely seriously.
The amendment gives no suggestion of where the funding of a replacement body would come from. Is it to come from a levy on the industry, once again placing a burden on employers, who would then have no control over the necessary allocation of resources? Or are financial arrangements of the transitional period to continue so that the new body is funded by sums voted by Parliament and paid by the taxpayer? Whatever the answer, the proposal is clearly unnecessary and unreasonable.

Mr. Tony Banks: A point that the Minister seems to miss is that discipline is provided by the existence of the scheme ports. What worries us is that, with the removal of the national training scheme provided by the scheme ports, that discipline will go. The Minister does not appreciate the significance of training in the docks or in any other industry. He describes training costs as a burden on the employer, but they are not a burden; they are part of the investment that any respectable and self-seeking employer should be making. We want to ensure that the best employers follow the best practices.

Mr. Nicholls: It is thoroughly in keeping with the demonology of the Labour party to assume, as the hon. Gentleman has in his usual sincere and witty manner, that the only way in which employers can be obliged to train is through the use of a bit of discipline—a word that trips off the hon. Gentleman's tongue. In less formal surroundings, he would probably say that what employers need is a touch of the lash. That is what I think he has in mind.
It is curious that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept for a moment that naked self-interest, if nothing else, would make employers train. The hon. Gentleman obviously prefers the idea of a touch of the lash in connection with naked self-interest. The idea that employers would be prepared to commit millions of pounds' worth of equipment to a casual worker—if I may refer to a point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—or to commit it to someone with no proper training is absolute nonsense. The hon. Gentleman need not take it from me; he can look at the record. I had to remind the House a few moments ago that more training is provided by one non-scheme port—Felixstowe—than by all the non-scheme ports. That is the best assurance that the hon. Gentleman could have that, in a modern port industry, employers desperately need trained staff.
The Bill provides for the board to wind itself up in a way that will give port employers and authorities every incentive to take over useful training and welfare facilities. The statutory requirements for health, safety and welfare which apply to all ports are comprehensive, but if there is a need for development it should be within the framework of general health and safety provisions. After abolition, scheme ports will have every incentive to make proper provision for their skill needs. There is no reason to assume that a national body would help the industry meet its training needs more effectively.
I refer finally to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East about possible redundancies of board staff who are not registered dock workers and who cannot look forward to the generous compensation scheme outlined in the previous debate. It would be wholly inappropriate for either the hon. Gentleman or myself to speculate on the level of redundancies, if any. However, I take his point that, logically, there could be redundancies. I understand that the board is considering proposals to enhance the voluntary severance payments that otherwise will be made on a contractual basis. Discussions on that aspect will continue.
I cannot accept that there is a case for the type of national body that the Opposition seek. I ask Opposition Members to accept not only my words—though I am certain to do so on future occasions—but to look at the pattern of behaviour in non-scheme ports. That pattern, even more than my words and those of other Ministers, gives the lie to the Opposition's worst fears.

Mr. Loyden: The Government have failed to remove our doubts about how seriously they approach training matters. The point was made more than once in Committee that, in only two decades, the industry's practices and cargo handling techniques have been revolutionised, so that the modern docks industry bears no resemblance to that which existed before the war, shortly after the war, and even in the early 1960s. That transformation took place under the wing, and with the direct assistance, of the National Dock Labour Board. It


was responsible for providing the training that transformed dockers from men who wore hooks in their belts and pushed hand bogeys on the dock estate to skilled workers who handle equipment having a customs value of between £250,000 and £750,000 per piece.
That training embraced the operation of everything from the forklift truck to the gantry crane, and all the other mechanical operations, which are different from those used in any other industry and probably unique. A tugmaster loading a ro-ro vessel, for example, is worth watching. It is a demanding task that dock workers have been trained to carry out to great effect, and it is to their credit that they have been able to adapt.
Conservative Members have referred to the number of dock labour disputes. I remind the House that the record number of 427 disputes, of which 410 were official, was set before the establishment of the national dock labour scheme. Unofficial strikes were caused by the conditions prevailing in the industry before the scheme came into existence. It brought order where chaos existed. There has been a move away from traditional cargo handling methods to hi-tech operations such as containerisation, palletisation, ro-ro and bulk cargo handling. They have all been mastered by dock workers as a consequence of the good training provided by the National Dock Labour Board.
I put to the Minister the example of the small firm—the sweetheart of the Tory party, which it views as a cherished friend—employing 60 registered dock workers. How will such a company provide adequate training? There will be no legislation, other than that of a general nature that the Minister outlined, requiring employers to provide proper training. We are concerned about the quality of training that will follow in the wake of the scheme's abolition.
My mind is open, but I remain to be convinced that we have nothing to fear and that when the transitional period ends, the void that follows will be immediately filled by training schemes of the quality that the industry previously enjoyed. Neither am I convinced that the services needed by the industry will be retained. It is a dangerous industry in which to work. In Committee, I reported the death only a few weeks previously of a registered dock worker in the port of Liverpool; his mate was taken to hospital seriously injured after an attempt to save his comrade after a load had broken from its swing and buried the docker under a weight of timber.
The dock industry presents many such hazards, which require specific medical provision. National Health Service facilities may be as far away as five miles. Before the present Government came to power, there was in existence almost on the dock road in Liverpool the Royal hospital, but that is now gone. The distance now between the docks and the nearest hospital is measured in miles rather than yards.
The Minister must accept that we are not weaving a fantasy about the docks industry. During debates on the national dock labour scheme, Conservative Members showed in the most naked way that they know little or nothing about the industry. That is the great danger. They are not prepared to move their minds away from the briefs that they are given and to listen to informed comment, take it on board, and act upon it. Certainly there is no evidence that the Minister has given proper thought and consideration to the points made both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will be able to persuade us that we are all doubting Thomases and that he has the best interests of dock workers in mind.

Mr. David Davis: The nub of the case made by my hon. Friend the Minister is that the evidence from non-scheme ports is that a special scheme of Government intervention in training would not be advantageous. Throughout the Committee stage and today, there have been either explicit or implicit claims of superiority for the training provided under the dock labour scheme. Ironically, there were claims also of a lack of training as a way of justifying ghosting, but I put that matter to one side.
The facts do not support either general or specific claims of superiority. The statistics show that in 1987, which is the last year for which comparative figures are available, about 33 per cent. of scheme employees underwent scheme training lasting an average of three days. In the nearest equivalent industry, transport and commercial, 40 per cent. of employees underwent 10 days of training per employee—roughly four times as much training.
7 pm
We have been accused of using the example of Felixstowe ad nauseam, but there was a good article on that port in the Sunday Times on 16 April this year from which I want to quote one extract. A young worker called Mark Green, who has just started work at Felixstowe, said:
I may not seem to have much of a job now, but the training schemes at the port arc great…You can work your way up and win whatever responsibility you want.
He went on to speak about how he wanted to become a driver of one of the major cranes.
We have been accused, with some substance, of using Felixstowe as an argument. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is more training going on there than in the rest of the scheme ports put together. Some members of the Committee—I am glad to say that this has not happened today—focused their attack on what they called cowboy operators. Nobody defined that term. We were left to guess whether it described a pioneering spirit of enterprise or something rather less flattering. I suspect that the latter is the case. They were put forward as an explanation of how some of the smaller ports obtained business at the expense of the larger scheme ports. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who unfortunately is not with us today, attributed the loss of trade from scheme ports to non-scheme ports to the cowboy operators—the low-cost operators—and he made specific allegations about training.
I felt that it was incumbent on me to check the facts. Some of the work was done for us in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. He checked one of the smaller port operators, a company called Trent Wharfage. He described how that private operator took on unskilled personnel and trained them to operate major pieces of port equipment, such as those described by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), either by in-house training or through contract training outside.
That did not seem to be enough evidence, so I telephoned small port employers in the Humber area. The market share of Humber traffic of those smaller ports grew from 15 per cent. to 21 per cent. at the expense of scheme ports in just five years. They did that against the odds.


Conditions were difficult. They had difficult rivers and locations on small, poor roads, so their success was the result of something other than geographic location.
I called two small ports at Selby and Howden to get an idea of what they did on training. I gave no warning that I intended to call but in one case a training manager was in the general manager's office when I rang. It says something that a small operation employing 30 to 40 people has a training manager.
I was told a number of things. First, the ports were trade unionised and had TGWU representation, with proper contract terms. I asked about safety and skill training and, specifically, about training in the use of cranes, vehicles, forklifts and so on. It became apparent that they had schemes, in-house and contract, with training boards outside in the construction and road transport industries for each of those areas.
Those ports managers were spontaneously aware of the new docks regulations. They knew that several years of training was required for the use of heavy cranes. They knew that the code of practice required forklift driver certification. That was not the response of cowboy operators, in the sense that that term was used by Opposition Members.
The point that came across clearly was more a matter of common sense, which the hon. Member for Garston will understand. It was not in the interests of such ports to allow untrained men to use highly expensive and heavy equipment of the type commonly bought today—the sort of equipment that the hon. Gentleman described.
I was told that a 90-tonne crane cost £500,000. For a man to use that crane he has to be sent away for two weeks' intensive training at a cost of £500, plus his salary. Damage can be done by the untrained use of such equipment. No one in his right mind would skimp £500 and risk £500,000. I am putting entirely on one side the sort of accidents that could occur from misuse, such as the hon. Gentleman described. No one with any sense of responsibility, or even self-interest, would not train such operators. I shall not waste time now, but I could give further examples, such as the £125,000 forklift truck.
There are three components of a training decision in the docks industry. The first, rightly, is safety. Any responsible manager would put that at the top of his priorities, but even if he did not, health and safety at work regulations and the specific docks regulations of 1988 which came into effect on 1 January this year would ensure safety. Therefore, there is already a safety net. On skills, the economic argument that I have just explained is ovrwhelming from the point of view of the individual employer, whether enormous like Felixstowe or tiny link Howden.
Finally, there is the need to have the money available. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). People do not need to be forced to do something that is in their own interests, but they need money for investment.
Safety, skils and money are the three components of a training decision. The national dock labour scheme does nothing to add to the regulations on safety. It does nothing to enhance the importance of skills, because it reduces the

productivity of the equipment and it positively undermines prosperity. Therefore, it is not tenable to say that the scheme in any way helps training in Britain.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) were simply saying that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. That is all that the amendment is about. It is not a wrecking amendment or one that tries to continue the dock labour scheme by some other means. It merely asks that the Government, in the hiatus that they have created by rushing the Bill through the House, tell the House what will happen with regard to training and medical care.
I am proud to say that I am sponsored by the TGWU, of which I have been a member for some 40 years. I do not have any docks of any significance in my constituency. I have a few dock workers in Runcorn and I may have a few who work in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston; but, like every other hon. Member, I live on an island and docks are important to us all because any difficulty with the docks or the dock workers can create a complete stranglehold on our economy.
We are going into 1992 and we are talking about training for dock workers. I was appalled to hear the Minister ask whether the burden of training should be on the employer or on the taxpayer. Other industries—for example, ICI—do not talk about the burden of training. Training is an important investment.
The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) talked about crane drivers and heavy equipment. He was right to say that no industry would let loose an unskilled hand on £500,000 worth of equipment, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about training for the ordinary, unskilled individual who needs to be trained just as much as the crane driver, because without it he could be involved in an accident or create infinite damage simply through ignorance.
I envisage an increase in casualisation, which currently stands at only 6 per cent. because there is a dock labour scheme. Without it, casualisation would increase considerably. Unskilled people will be glad to have a job and will be willing to do anything. They will abandon the safety conditions and all the rules because they desperately want a job. They will not press for safety rules or for adequate training. That has already happened with the YTS, especially in the building industry. We are an island nation wholly dependent upon the docks.
The Minister's complacent attitude amazes me because we are approaching 1992 and a Europe in which Germany, France, Italy, Spain and even Greece passionately believe in the importance of proper training—not just for highly skilled workers but for all workers. In Germany, someone cannot be even a shop assistant until he has received proper training. That is right, because such people do a skilled job. A docker does a dangerous job. When I take my car on a ferry when I am travelling abroad, I am amazed by the skilled jobs being carried out by dock workers. They put quarts into pint pots. No unskilled person could do that.
I fear that the Bill will mean a dilution of training standards. The National Dock Labour Board currently sets training standards. The Minister said that it does not do enough, which may be true, but the Government should insist that it does more. If Felixstowe is so much better without the dock labour scheme, I hope that the


Government, in the hiatus that they are creating, will insist that all other ports are brought up to Felixstowe's standard. Instead, I fear that the position in most ports will become considerably worse under this Bill, which has been rushed through the House, at the insistence of the port employers, almost by sleight of hand. The amendment simply asks the Government to tell us what they intend to do with training in the interim period. We do not want them to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Clause 3 is being discussed with this proposed amendment to clause 2 under the guillotine procedure, although the connection between the two clauses is difficult to understand. Clause 3 is a gauleiter clause; it provides that, if there is any disagreement between the Secretary of State and the members of the board, the Secretary of State can sack them and appoint another person to carry out their duties. If that person then does not carry out those duties to his satisfaction, he can also be sacked. Why appoint that other person? Why does not the Secretary of State say that he will do the job, in accordance with his wishes and diktats? It is a gauleiter clause, because any person appointed under it will have to do precisely what the Secretary of State says or be sacked.
This country will be greatly affected in 1992 by its complete lack of interest in training and the attitude that training is a burden. Training is not a burden; it is an investment, and all good industries regard it as such. It chills me to hear the Minister refer to training as a burden, whether on the taxpayer or industry.

Mr. Nicholls: I said that, if the National Dock Labour Board imposed a levy during a transitional period it would be a burden. That is one reason why we think our proposed scheme is right. The money spent by an employer on training is very much an investment, which is why I cited the example of Felixstowe. That might he a semantic point, but it is crucial. I said that a levy would be a burden, not that investment in training would be a burden.

Mr. Oakes: The House needs to know exactly what will happen during the transitional period. We do not know what will happen and the Minister will not tell us.

Dr. Godman: A system of levy is not unknown to other maritime industries—for example, every stone of fish landed at a British port by a United Kingdom registered fishing vessel is subject to levy. That levy is used towards the costs of running the industry and the costs of training fishermen.

Mr. Oakes: I know nothing about the fishing industry, but I accept what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, it seems an eminently sensible thing to do. It is unfortunate that many industries do not invest in training. Because other European countries invest in training, they will be in a better position than Britain in the mid-1990s.

Mr. Loyden: I am puzzled by the Minister's remark about a levy being a burden. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware, even if the Minister is not, that the levy pays for training. Therefore, it follows that if the levy is a burden, so is training.

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend has hit on a crucial point. The Minister appears to think that spending money on

training is wrong, yet the rest of Europe thinks it right. Europe is right and Britain is wrong. The Minister may say that many of our major industries show capitalism at work, but it is good sense to invest money to obtain the best safety record and the best efficiency from the work force. Even a kid of 17 or 18 should be trained, for his own safety, for that of his workmates and for the efficiency of the industry in which he works. The Bill creates a hiatus. The Government do not know what will happen about training.
This is not a wrecking amendment. It is a sensible amendment. I ask the Minister, please, at least to consider it so that in another place the idea of providing proper training in the docks industry can be invesigated further by means of a Government amendment.

Mr. Michael Jack: I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said about training but I do not know whether he listened to the Minister when he referred to training and prayed in aid the port of Felixstowe, where large sums are being spent on training. The right hon. Gentleman almost seemed to imply that the only ports that do any training are scheme ports, and that the non-scheme ports do no training whatsoever. That is not the case. The Minister said that Felixstowe spends a great deal of money on training.
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to consider what would happen in a port that recruited large numbers of so-called unskilled persons.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop this point because it is crucial to the argument of the right hon. Member for Halton.
The right hon. Gentleman told us to beware of those ports that might recruit unskilled labour. However. I pray in aid an article in the Financial Times of 28 March by Jimmy Burns. It is headed:
Dockers fear tide turning against closed shop.
I read the article with interest. It refers to Felixstowe, where the Transport and General Workers Union has a single union agreement. I shall say a word or two later about the training role of trade unions. The article says that Felixstowe's recruitment
is predominantly local, among men with no experience in dock work.
Felixstowe was the first port in the United Kingdom to handle more than 1 million TEUs, which are 20ft equivalent container units, in a single year. That port has built its success on the use of unskilled labour which had no previous experience of dock work.
I have visited Felixstowe and seen the port in action. It is a quite remarkable place to visit. Its rate of expansion is very rapid. When I visited Felixstowe, the port was expanding so rapidly that, as soon as the tarmac was laid, containers were put on to it. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that the growth of Felixstowe had led to an unacceptably high level of accidents or that all the progress there had been achieved without any form of training.

Mr. Oakes: rose—

Mr. Jack: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Oakes: Yes. I am not attacking the port of Felixstowe. All I am asking the Government is, if the training at the port of Felixstowe is so good, why create a


hiatus, which the Bill does in the Government's rush to get it through? Why do they not accept the amendment and bring every port up to the standard at Felixstowe?

Mr. Jack: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has clarified his position and said that the training procedures at Felixstowe are excellent. I do not think that under the new arrangements the port employers will say, "Now that we are non-scheme ports, we shall stop providing any training until some future date." It does not add up; it is impractical. Felixstowe shows how effective it is to devise training that suits local needs. Felixstowe is a general cargo and container port. Smaller vessels also call at Felixstowe, for which a specific type of training is required. Felixstowe has got round that problem.
I am now prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Will he go a little further than Felixstowe and say what standard of training is provided in some of the other non-scheme ports? We keep hearing about Felixstowe, but what about some of the others?

Mr. Jack: I have every reason to believe that the other non-scheme ports also provide a high level of training. Not too long ago I visited the port of Dover. I asked those who operate the ferries what new training requirements had been introduced after the Zeebrugge disaster. I was most impressed by the high levels of training and checking that had been introduced to counteract some of the previous discrepancies.

Mr. Banks: But it was a bit late.

Mr. Jack: The Opposition have not suggested that the levels of training that are available in the non-scheme ports are poor, that they do not meet the needs of those ports and that they engender bad practice. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the House to adopt the amendment, that is the kind of argument that I would have expected him to use, but he has not done so.
Training is not just about the mechanics of operating machines. Training is also about attitudes of mind. The amendment suggests that the scheme ports training scheme should be extended to the non-scheme ports, but it says nothing about the types of training that ought to be provided. The Opposition seem to believe that people are more concerned about which button to push, or which lever to pull, or which crane to operate and the correct safety procedures for doing so, but training involves far more than that. Training encompasses an attitude of mind.
The training at Felixstowe encompasses an attitude of mind and the ability to be flexible. The lack of demarcation practices at that port has helped to make it the success it is. Paragraph 1·6 of the White Paper says:
Well-motivated and productive workers are a key element in the success of any business.
I see no reference to that aspect of training in the amendment. Paragraph 1·7 says that the dock labour scheme
sustains attitudes and practices in dock work which run counter to the needs of an efficient and successful ports industry, strong enough to face growing competitive pressures.
If that is the result of the training that is provided in the scheme ports, I wonder how effective it would be in terms

of the attitude of mind that it would export to the non-scheme ports. To command the respect of the House, the amendment ought to have fleshed out in more detail the kinds of training that would be appropriate to the new docks industry. All it suggests is that what we have now should be laid on top of what will be provided. It smacks of a typically Socialist solution.
The notion that the larger non-scheme ports could act as a training agency for the smaller ports surrounding them would be completely ruled out by the amendment. Liverpool could serve as a centre of excellence for training in other ports. The amendment, as drafted, does not enable us to discuss the training opportunities that might be possible under the new arrangements.
The right hon. Member for Halton said that this is not a wrecking amendment, but I have a nasty suspicion at the back of my mind that if the House approved the amendment—which I shall certainly not support—there would be no guarantee about the timetable that the new body would follow. I foresee prolonged discussions, endless meetings, committees being set up and training courses reviewed and rejected while the reform of the ports industry, which we hanker after, waits in the wings. The amendment says that we should not press on with training until the new training body is in place, but the amendment provides no timetable for the establishment of that body. It is wrong to ask us to agree to a totally open-ended commitment.

Mr. James Paice: As my hon. Friend probably knows, I was born in Felixstowe and lived close to the docks for much of my life. Does he agree that Felixstowe has demonstrated that it does not need external help to provide trade? The second part of the amendment refers to the welfare of the work force. Does my hon. Friend agree that Felixstowe has shown clearly by the small number of industrial disputes and the tremendously high wages paid to the dockers that it can maintain a high level of welfare care for its employees, without any external influence? My hon. Friend may be aware that a substantial percentage of the workers at Felixstowe send their children to public schools. That may not be palatable to the Opposition Benches, but it shows the benefit of a prosperous port.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I agree with all that he said. He reflects on paragraph 2·16 of the White Paper, which points to the benefits of a good health and safety policy. Before I became a Member, I was in the produce pre-packing industry.

Mr. Tony Banks: The what?

Mr. Jack: Some hon. Members may have heard of apples and lettuces; for the benefit of those who have not, we supplied supermarkets with fresh fruit and vegetables.
One aspect for which I was responsible was dealing with the trade unions on training and safety. I had great respect for the contribution that the trade unions made to our safety policies which were born out of the needs of our business. Produce pre-packing is not an industry with an overall training board. We were happy to work within the parameters set by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act


1974. We produced safety and training statements and we worked with the trade unions. We drew on their knowledge to create the right package for our business.
That arrangement appears to be mirrored in the port of Felixstowe. If it can work well in that port, could it not work equally well in other ports? Surely Opposition Members can see an enhanced role for the trade unions that they represent. Trade unions have an important role to play and it will not be taken away from them. It has been suggested that, if we do not agree to the amendment, training will cease as soon as the Bill becomes law. I do not think that anyone who has tried to run a modern, efficient ports industry will cease training. I do not see some of the drawbacks to which Opposition Members have referred. I think that people realise the enormous benefits that result from training.
The amendment is too open-ended. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, it says nothing about funding. It does not go into any detail about the welfare schemes that we might expect. Perhaps we should explore that in more detail. As to the medical aspects, the amendment ignores the exciting and interesting opportunities whereby local health authorities offer employers various forms of occupational medicine and assessment of difficulties associated with particular jobs. If a national scheme was imposed on the industry, local initiatives might well be lost to ports and to dockers. A nationally imposed superstructure is not always the best way to meet the local needs of the ports industry that we all hope to see when the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall be brief, because time is short. Much has been made of the fact that the Bill was produced suddenly and the way in which it is being bounced through the House. Undoubtedly it has been a long time in gestation. The decision to abolish the National Dock Labour Board must have been taken some time ago or the glossy White Paper and the Bill could not have been produced so quickly. It is clear that the Government were hypnotised by their obsession to do away with the dock labour scheme and that they did not think about what would happen after the scheme was abolished.
That is particularly galling in relation to training and medical and welfare facilities. I am astonished at the suggestion that everything should be done locally. Government supporters suggest that there is no room for an overall scheme. The docks industry is diverse. The same type of work is not done in each port, whether scheme or non-scheme port, but there is a broad overall pattern and all ports require the same level of competence and the same welfare and medical facilities.
ICI is a progressive, national employer, as is Marks and Spencer. If such companies, with businesses all over the country, were told that they should not have an overall training scheme but that they should leave training to local managers in Aberdeen, Felixstowe or wherever, they would think that that was ridiculous. Those companies use their size and capacity to develop training schemes and welfare facilities to benefit all their employees. All we are suggesting in the amendment is that there should be a scheme that takes the best and makes it available all over the country.
I have never before heard Ministers pay such plaudits to a Labour Government. Every Conservative Member quoted the Health and Safety at Work etc. 1974 Act. Its

significance was that it imposed conditions on every employer; an employer does not have the right to opt out. The significant point about the date, 1974, is that it was a long time after the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1974 it became necessary to compel employers to take proper account of health and safety at work. The problem is that the inspectorate has riot been kept up to strength to make sure that the Act is enforced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked a specific question of the Minister about something in his constituency. What did the Minister say? He told him that he should have raised the matter earlier. My hon. Friend did; he has been raising it for some time. The Minister did not say, as I would have expected, "I am disappointed to hear that. Tell me straight away the name of the company, and where it operates, and I will ensure that my inspectors are there tomorrow. If it is not providing proper conditions, action will he taken against it under the Act." We did not hear that from the Minister. He just said that it was up to employers to do what they liked.
The Government do not want just to destroy the dock labour scheme; they want to make sure that the industry is fragmented. Every time that we debate the issue, we hear tales about the new jobs that will be created. The jobs that have been lost disappeared not because of the scheme but because of changes in conditions. The Minister does not seem to understand that the catalyst that he is producing will lead to a deterioration in conditions in the industry. If the ports are to compete and to produce more jobs, what advantages will there be in individual ports having day-to-day negotiations with their employees? Will the ports decide to cut wages? Presumably the Government will say that that is not the intention of the scheme, although some of us suspect that it may be. The only room to cut costs will be in matters such as training, health, welfare and safety. In the scandal that will follow, I fear that conditions will be driven down and that training will go out of the window.
The Government's ethos is that the market should decide. They have introduced all sorts of schemes such as enterprise zones and areas where planning considerations do not apply in order to attract jobs. The Government's attack on unemployment is not to create conditions and enthusiasm for investment, but to change the circumstances and drive down costs to ensure that the employees pay the price.
The amendment is significant. I certainly hope that the Government will think again and realise the advantage of an overall training scheme where new employees can learn from good employees and good employees can be used to change unsatisfactory conditions. The amendment is evidently worth supporting. I shall vote for it; I hope that the Government will change their mind and see some sense, even at this late stage.

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall speak briefly on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I shall speak about amendment No. 2 first because my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred to clause 3 as the gauleiter clause. When we examined the Bill in Committee, we decided that it was the Al Capone clause because when it refers to dismissing the members of the board one at a time it means getting rid of them all at one go. We saw shades of the St. Valentine's day massacre as the Secretary of State, who obviously fitted Al Capone to a T, would wipe out everyone in one


go. When we went down the gangway, we could see close similarities with many Chicago-type gangsters facing us on the Conservative Benches. One immediately recognised the Government Whip as Frank Nitty, the enforcer, and in view of the size of the Minister of State, Department of Employment, he is obviously Legs Diamond. Who else could the Minister for Public Transport be than Baby Face Nelson? That is the humorous side, but it is a serious matter.
It is quite clear that in the interim period, members of the board will be given instructions and offers that they can only refuse and then Al Capone—the Secretary of State—will move in and get rid of them all at once, no doubt consulting the list of the stooges and lickspittles in his Department to make sure that the nominee who replaces them is "one of ours", as that is the Prime Minister's intention.
Clause 3(4) states that the Secretary of State will decide
The terms of service and remuneration of any such person".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing amendment No. 1; he is talking to amendment No. 2, which we have not yet reached.

Mr. Banks: I thought that we were to dismiss the amendments by 8 o'clock, so if I did not make my remarks now, I did not see where I could get them in, except perhaps on Third Reading. I listened carefully to what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not withdraw my remarks, although they appear to have been wholly out of order.
This is a serious matter and appears to give inordinate power to the Secretary of State, which in Committee and in the House we find quite unacceptable.
I shall move on briefly to training. The Government are getting rid of the scheme, so it is up to the Government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that training will not suffer. The 1987 dock labour scheme report reveals the extent of training nationally. I said that the non-scheme ports needed the discipline of a national training scheme because, frankly, I feel that when the national scheme is abolished, not the best but the worst practices will emerge in the non-scheme ports.
My evidence is based on what is happening in industry throughout the country. Training standards and the amount of money that is spent on training in Britain are generally abysmal. The evidence is all there and the Minister is arguing against the facts. On behalf of those who work within scheme and non-scheme ports, we have an absolute right to ask what safeguards the Minister plans to introduce.
If we are wrong, no great damage will have been done, but if the Minister is wrong there will be enormous damage. That is why it is incumbent on the Minister to provide much firmer assurances than he has so far, because it is his responsibility. He is responsible for removing the national scheme, so he must say what will happen if he is wrong, and how he intends to avoid that.
7.45 pm
One reason why national training schemes are in order is that they make sure that the better employers—and there are many of them—do not find that the money they invest in training workers is acting as a subsidy to other

employers who poach their employees. It becomes relatively easy for those other employers to say, "As we have saved on training, we can offer a little over the odds to attract the skilled workers that that employer has trained." That is why a national training scheme that exists for the scheme ports would be in the interests of the entire industry, especially the best employers. It would ensure that the practices of the best employers apply right across the board. As the Minister knows, if we had the opportunity, we should like a national scheme that also covered non-scheme ports. National training schemes seem to be the answer to the poor standards of training that exist in the ports and in British industry.
I refer the Minister to a recent MSC-NEDO report that concluded that British companies rarely consider training a main component of their corporate strategy and do not treat training as a boardroom issue. West German employers spend three times more than British firms on training. The Minister must realise that there is a correlation between the high levels of skill and training in competitive countries such as West Germany and their economic success which is far greater than we are currently enjoying. The Minister must realise that those comparisons exist in international comparable statistics and within the different practices between good and poor employers in Britain.
It is up to the Minister, since he is throwing something away, to tell us what he will do if it turns out that we are right and he is wrong. If we are wrong, no great damage will be caused, but if he is wrong, a great deal of damage will be inflicted on the ports industry.

Mr. John McAllion: I shall be brief so that the Minister can reply to the debate.
Earlier, a Conservative Member expressed concern about the timetabling which the amendment would apply and was concerned that it might create delays, as it would take some time to negotiate the body referred to in the amendment. I am surprised that any Conservative Member should dare to mention timetabling as, apart from wartime, it is difficult to recall any Bill being rushed through the House of Commons with the haste that the Dock Work Bill has been rushed through in the past few weeks. That haste is demonstrated by the lack of consideration in the Bill and by the Government to the implications of abolishing the National Dock Labour Board without making adequate provision for alternative training arrangements.
The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that he was opposed to any national scheme. I assume that his opposition is based on the fact that national schemes set down minimum requirements from which employers cannot escape. He would much prefer local arrangements to be in place because they allow employers to get away with as much as they can without living up to the national standards which would be applied by a national training body.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that kind of criticism. We have been talking about some of the most effective, efficient and profitable ports in the United Kingdom, such as Felixstowe, that have done extremely well by generating their own training programmes. They are not trying to get away with anything. Training has been an integral part of their business.

Mr. McAllion: It seems that Conservative members rest their entire case on the example of Felixstowe. That is not the only port in Britain. Many other ports, and particularly small ones, will quickly get away from national minimum requirements.

Mr. David Davis: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I will not give way again because I am anxious to give the Minister a few minutes in which to reply. The Government have imposed the guillotine. If, in addition, Conservative Members try to intervene, so giving us even less time in which to make the points that we must make, we shall be doubly penalised.
The hon. Member for Fylde said that training was an attitude of mind. He must accept that the trust placed in employers to deliver that training is also an attitude of mind. Unfortunately, we have experience of employers in many areas of the economy not delivering on training, health and safety and, as a result, making the lives of workers a misery. That is why we oppose the Bill and are trying to amend it so as to make it slightly more progressive and considerate of workers.
In his earlier remarks, the Minister claimed that he did not say that training was a burden; or that, if he said it, he meant to refer only to the levy. I remind him that the Government have abolished industrial training boards and closed down skill centres and are selling them off for huge profits. That suggests that it is not only the levy that concerns them. Having abolished industrial training boards and closed down skill centres, we question their whole approach to national training requirements. That is why my hon. Friends and I are anxious to amend the Bill.
The Minister tried to paint a picture which would ease the consciences of those who would rather look the other way while the Government attacked the existing protection of workers in the docks industry. He said, for example, that dock work was too sophisticated for employers even to risk neglecting training or the health and safety conditions of their employees. That was so, he said, because money spent in those areas represented essential investment if we were to be successful in European markets after 1992.
I think the Minister was trying to say that the efficient utilisation of new methods—containerisation, ro-ro, new grain-handling procedures and so on—required employers, in their own self-interest, to protect their work forces. We must judge the validity of that argument as best we can. If employers are so concerned about training and health and safety in the ports, why should it be intolerable to expect them to contribute to a levy for a national body to secure acceptable arrangements for training and health and safety standards?
The Minister suggested that that would inhibit the acceptance by employers of their responsibilities in the matter. If this House had taken that attitude in the 19th century, we would not have had the factories legislation and we should still have 10-year-olds working an 18-hour day in the satanic mills. That would have been the case had we left it to employers and expected them to be responsible. It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that employers accept their responsibilities, and that is why the Bill should be amended in the way that we suggest.
The Minister then argued that there already existed general health and safety legislation and national training schemes which employers could use for their work forces.

I do not know whether the Minister was referring to the youth training scheme or the employment training scheme, or both. If he had such schemes in mind, why should he consider them sufficient to meet the sophisticated requirements of the ports that, he said, were necessary at Felixstowe and elsewhere? I assure the hon. Gentleman that Felixstowe does not consider such national schemes to be sufficient. That is why, as we have been told time and again, Felixstowe has invested £570,000 in one year to implement its training requirements.
In other words, if what exists is not good enough for Felixstowe, why should it be good enough for all the other ports in this country? What is the Minister doing to ensure that all those other ports meet the standards set by Felixstowe and that they invest in the training schemes that are required?
The Minister said at one stage that the Government wanted arrangements that were appropriate to a particular port and work force. That must mean that there will be different arrangements in different ports. In huge ports which make large investments, there may be adequate training schemes, but in smaller ports which have only small sums to invest in training and in health and safety standards, different standards will apply. That will mean that the lives of the men who work in those smaller ports could be at risk, all because this measure is being forced through Parliament in such haste that we are unable to give all the issues sufficient attention.
The Minister said that it was not in the interest of port employers to use unskilled labour, although we then heard from Conservative Members that that had been done in Felixstowe for many years. If what the Minister said is true, why is there still 6 per cent. casualism in non-registered ports? What about the position of Port Glasgow, where, we have been told, unemployed workers are being paid £2·50 an hour to work in the docks? We must have answers to those questions.
Such developments have not spread more widely in the non-registered ports because of the existence of the national dock labour scheme, and the national agreements in the non-registered ports have been based on that scheme. In other words, take away the dock labour scheme and there can be an attack on the national agreements that the Transport and General Workers Union has negotiated in the other ports. The result will be differing conditions in the various ports throughout the country. Those working in small ports will find their lives at risk. That is what the Government have in mind, and that is why we must amend the Bill.

Mr. Nicholls: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the few minutes available to me I will do my best to answer the more salient points that were made in the debate.
Although he will not thank me for saying so, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) summed up what the debate has been about and why the amendment cannot be accepted when he described in his opening remarks the transformation that there has been in training. He described his experience over the years, in the light of his time in the docks, and pointed out that there had been almost a revolution in the way in which the docks operate. He spoke of the skills that dockers now had and the equipment they were being called on to operate. He painted a picture of a modern industry in which it would be impossible for casualism to operate.
That theme has run through all the contributions that have been made by Opposition Members throughout the debate. It works on the supposition that one can turn one's face away from the developments that have taken place and say that the lessons of the 1920s, and perhaps even of the 1820s, show that if casualism and a lack of training existed before, the same could happen again today. The hon. Member for Garston knows better than most that that is not a sustainable attitude to take.
In a sense, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made the same mistake. He said that the scheme ports had in some way kept up standards in the non-scheme ports and that, in some way, if the scheme ports were swept away, standards would automatically sink. I appreciate the sincerity with which such a course may be advocated, but it is a manifest absurdity masquerading as a self-evident truth. A prosperous ports industry has grown up, not so much because of the changing patterns of technology, but because non-scheme ports have developed precisely because of the existence of scheme ports, often on the same estuaries and even on the same parts of the coast.
For every scheme port one will find a non-scheme port which was once insignificant, if not virtually non-existent. The presence of the scheme ports has produced those ports, and they throw the scheme ports into a certain light. The idea that in some way a declining sector of the industry has been able by its own inadequacies to bring on the non-scheme ports—the idea that in some way the practice of non-scheme ports is maintaining standards—is a complete absurdity. While I appreciate the sincerity with which the argument is adduced, I could not accept it.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said—this theme was echoed by several of his hon. Friends—that it was a question of throwing out the baby with the bath water. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in an excellent speech, pointed out that that was a Socialist attitude to life. I accept that Labour Members have a number of crosses to bear, one of them being their addiction to Socialism, but is nonsense to assume that, if things were not laid down in some impossible, bureaucratic, 1950s-type collectivist framework, they would not work.
Although the right hon. Member for Halton spoke about the baby and the bath water, he should accept that the baby of which we are talking is a pattern of training in non-scheme ports which—I make no apology for repeating the point—in relation to just one port, Felixstowe, shows that more is being spent on training than in all the non-scheme ports put together. Therefore, the idea that all training will cease as soon as the Bill is passed is nonsense.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) helped me by remembering that I am a lawyer. He said that he wanted to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. For any judge summing up before a jury, that means not that one might think of fantastic reasons why something might be right or wrong but simply that one should be sure on the evidence that the decision one reaches is correct. Those are the words a judge would use in summing up before a jury. If the hon. Member for

Newham, North-West looks at what really happens and at the pattern of training as well as the decline that there has been—

It being eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [8 May] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 225.

Division No. 213]
[8.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Galloway, George


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Mildred


Battle, John
Gould, Bryan


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bermingham, Gerald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.



Blair, Tony
Henderson, Doug


Blunkett, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Canavan, Dennis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kennedy, Charles


Cartwright, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lamond, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clay, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Clelland, David
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Doran, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martlew, Eric


Eadie, Alexander
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morley, Elliott


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon






O'Brien, William
Soley, Clive


O'Neill, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L.
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Walley, Joan


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N.


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Allen McKay.


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Allason, Rupert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon John


Amos, Alan
Cormack, Patrick


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aspinwall, Jack
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Atkinson, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dicks, Terry


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W.
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Sevan, David Gilroy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, George


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gow, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Chris
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chope, Christopher
Hayward, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Heddle, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)





Hind, Kenneth
Riddick, Graham


Hordern, Sir Peter
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rost, Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Janman, Tim
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shelton, Sir William


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sims, Roger


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kilfedder, James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Speller, Tony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maclean, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Summerson, Hugo


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wells, Bowen


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wolfson, Mark


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Yeo, Tim


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Porter, David (Waveney)



Powell, William (Corby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Price, Sir David
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Redwood, John
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Rhodes James, Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise sincerely to the Minister and the House for delaying this debate. I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is consistent with the rules of the House on relevance to retain on the Order Paper the midnight debate on car emissions. In the debate, the Government are apparently seeking the advice of the House on what should be done about the directive, in view of the last-minute amendment by the European Parliament. Like many other hon. Members, I have studied the papers, and an amendment has been tabled. However, at 4 pm today, we learned that this morning, in Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment outlined in specific detail the position of


Her Majesty's Government in advance of the meeting of the Council on 9 June. That opinion is now part of the formal procedures in Brussels and there is no way in which any opinion or any decision of the House at midnight tonight can have an effect.
How can it make sense for the House to sit for one and a half hours at midnight to discuss what should be done on an issue when action has already been taken this morning? Should not this anomaly at least be reported to the Select Committee on Procedure? I appreciate the problems, but it seems nonsense for the House to debate at midnight a decision that has already been made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It is a matter over which neither I nor Mr. Speaker has any control. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will seek to make his point in the course of the debate, when the Minister may take account of it and respond accordingly.
Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a long debate in Committee on the details of the Bill. What became even clearer during that debate is that the dock labour scheme suffers from a range of fundamental defects. It is a complete anomaly in the labour conditions of today, it has added to the costs of the ports covered by the scheme and has hindered their competitive position, and it has led to undoubted and unquestioned restrictive practices. But what it has not achieved has been more trade for scheme ports and, above all, more employment in scheme ports.
The position remains that the dock labour scheme creates a statutory monopoly for dock work in 40 of the major ports of this country. That means that only employers and dockers who are registered with one of the local dock boards can carry out dock work in ports covered by the scheme. That monopoly is enforced by criminal penalties—a maximum penalty of up to three months' imprisonment. It is an entirely wrong use of the criminal law to limit employment opportunities in this country.
The country has suffered not only through lost employment opportunities, but through the costs the scheme has imposed. The results of the trans-shipment survey carried out by the Department of Transport, published earlier this month, show just how much the scheme places its ports at a competitive disadvantage, with ports such as Tilbury and Southampton charging almost 30 and 40 per cent. more respectively than non-scheme Felixstowe for handling similar container cargo.
The scheme has meant extra costs for the consumer, industry and the taxpayer, who has so far paid out over £770 million in financial subsidy and through the costs of the voluntary severance scheme because it has been the only way of reducing surpluses of dock workers. As the debate in Committee made clear, restrictive practices have remained widespread, while at each scheme port, there have been complex sets of rules about what is and what is not dock work. What has the scheme achieved? It has

certainly not achieved a secure career for the registered dock workers themselves. Equally, it has not achieved good industrial relations in our ports.
Doubtless the authors of the dock labour scheme thought that in creating a statutory monopoly for dock work and ending the abuse of casual working they would bring about a significant improvement of industrial relations in the docks. By no measure has that been the case. There have been major strikes in every decade since the scheme began in 1947. The number of days lost as a result of strikes by registered dock workers in the scheme ports, according to the National Dock Labour Board's own figures, is still three times the national average. Between 1985 and 1987, the scheme ports lost something like 528 man days for every 1,000 employees compared with a total of 183 lost for every 1,000 in the rest of industry. In the 20 years between 1967 and 1987, there were over 3,500 strikes involving registered dock workers which resulted in 4 million working days being lost in scheme ports. That is a rate of over three disputes per week.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the Government themselves acknowledge that in some of the scheme ports, there has been enormous efficiency and a successful drive for improvement. If the Government had intended to abolish the scheme all along, why did they not say so in their election manifesto? They have, in effect, led many dock workers up the garden path and have provoked a conflict in which we may well have a national dock strike, with all the perils to the economy that that could bring. Why was the abolition of the scheme not included in the manifesto?

Mr. Fowler: We have never made any secret of the fact that we have been looking at barriers to employment. If the hon. Gentleman wants to swap stories about what is or is not in an election manifesto, I must point out that he will find that the 1976 legislation, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, was not set out in their election manifesto. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] It is true.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Gentleman had better check his facts before he misleads the House about our legislation. He misleads the House badly enough about his own legislation, so he should not mislead it about ours as well. Of course that legislation was set out in our manifesto. That is one of the reasons why it was introduced in the House.

Mr. Fowler: I shall check what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Wareing: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Fowler: I want to reply to the right hon. Gentleman first. Over the years, a number of offers have been made by employers and a suggestion was certainly put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was Secretary of State for Transport. On every occasion when it was suggested that negotiations on the national dock labour scheme should take place, the reply was the same from Mr. Connolly of the Transport and General Workers Union—that there was no point in having negotiations on either ending or


amending the scheme because that would be met by immediate strike action. That is the position that we have had to face.

Mr. Wareing: The Secretary of State has answered, to his own satisfaction, the question about the absence from the Conservative manifesto of any commitment to abolish the dock labour scheme. However, he will recall that on 19 January the Prime Minister said that she had no plans to abolish the national dock labour scheme. That was reiterated by the right hon. Gentleman himself when answering one of his hon. Friends on 20 March, 17 days before the publication of the White Paper on this subject. Can the Secretary of State say on precisely what date he gave instructions to his civil servants to draft a White Paper to abolish the scheme?

Mr. Fowler: No, we would not do that. I remember clearly the occasion that the hon. Gentleman refers to. One of my hon. Friends asked me a question. It was on a statement on another matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wriggle, wriggle."] I am not wriggling at all because my hon. Friend rightly made a contribution and I said at that time that I had nothing to add to any statements that had been made before. We then had a statement on the Floor of the House and brought out the White Paper. What the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition really object to is that there was no leaking of the proposals beforehand. They cannot get used to the fact that the proposals were not leaked in advance and that they did not have the opportunity of leaking them or of publishing the White Paper in advance of the debate on this subject as they did with the Health Service White Paper.
What has been typical of this debate and of everything that took place in Committee is that Opposition Members will use any argument that is extraneous to the detail of the dock labour scheme. As we sat through hour after hour in Committee, virtually no Opposition Member, with the exception of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), rose to defend the detail of the dock labour scheme. That has been the most significant feature of the whole debate.
Doubtless the authors of the scheme thought that there would be not only an improvement in industrial relations but a better position in relation to jobs and employment in the docks for registered dock workers. However, when one considers the impact of the scheme, one realises that jobs have gone and that the new recruitment of young people has been severely limited. Thousands of registered dock workes have volunteered to leave the industry. Just after the war, there were 82,000 registered dock workers; today there are 9,400.
Clearly, there is an inevitability about some of the reductions, but I ask the House to compare that position with the position of those working in ports that are outside the scheme. By definition, the non-scheme ports were of no consequence in cargo handling in 1947 when the scheme was drawn up. That is why they were left out of the scheme. Yet in the intervening years, ports outside the scheme have come to account for half our trade in value and 30 per cent. of our trade in volume. Employment of dock workers has now risen to 4,000 and nearly one in three of all dockers now work in non-scheme ports. Investment in ports such as Felixstowe and Dover dwarfs any investment in scheme ports. The record of the

non-scheme ports, gives the lie to some of the charges that have been made about the abolition of the present dock labour scheme.
In spite of all that, the only pledge made by the Opposition Front Bench in Committee was that they would reintroduce a new statutory dock scheme if they were elected and that they would extend it to new occupations such as warehousing. They intend to spread such a scheme to half a mile from the waterfront. That was the effect of one of the amendments that they tabled. In addition, they wish, want and are pledged to extend the scheme to every port in the country, including the ports that are not covered by the dock labour scheme now. If I can make a prediction, I believe that that will prove to be one of the biggest and most unpopular millstones that even the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has placed around the neck of his party. Not content with reintroducing—

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be enlarging his speech in this Third Reading debate to discuss matters that are not in the Bill. Will we all have a full chance to answer that part of the right hon. Gentleman's case, along with our answers to the rest of his case, when he gets round to defending the Bill itself?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that the Third Reading of a Bill should be restricted to what is in the Bill, but I have heard nothing so far from the Secretary of State that goes outside that.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That intervention shows the acute sensitivity of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). Indeed, no hon. Member should be more sensitive about the dock work than the right hon. Gentleman. His record is one of the most appalling of any Secretary of State in the 50 years of this scheme.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I could, of course, raise this as a point of order. Whatever else may be said about what I have said in the past, such comments are certainly not in order on the Third Reading of this Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman eventually come round to discussing his own Bill?

Mr. Fowler: Most certainly 1 will, but not before I have left this point. Again I point out to the House the acute sensitivity of the right hon. Gentleman. We look forward to a political debate outside the House on this matter—

Mr. Tony Banks: Any time, sunshine.

Mr. Fowler: In fact, I suspect that we look forward to that debate rather more than the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
Throughout the debate, one point has come over. The defenders of the present dock labour scheme are fighting yesterday's battles; they are defending the scheme as if we had the conditions of the 1930s and 1940s. Although I very much respect the position of the hon. Member for Garston and his experience, I do not believe that he is correct in seeking to fight the Bill as if the conditions of today are those that applied straight after the second world war. We can all agree that the scheme was introduced to prevent casualism and that none of us wants to see the conditions of 50 years ago return in this country. But there is


absolutely no reason to believe that there will be such a return. There is every reason to believe that there will be no return to casualism.
Let us consider the experience of non-scheme ports. The advance of the ports outside the scheme has not been achieved by either low pay or casualism. Dockers are well paid and the enormous changes in the way ships are unloaded—with new technology and containerisation—have transformed the nature of dock work and virtually eliminated the scope for casual work. Dock work is now highly skilled, specialist work which requires the use of sophisticated machinery. It requires a permanent and well-trained work force. The days when large numbers of unskilled labourers assembled waiting to see whether there was work for them have gone for good—and everyone is glad of that.
To underline that point, the employers in the present scheme ports have given an assurance that, after abolition, there will be no return to casual employment. That assurance is crucial. We have a dock labour scheme to prevent casualism. Port companies employing more than 90 per cent. of registered dock workers have given an undertaking that there will be no return to the casual system of working. It is not just a matter of the pledge or the assurance that they are giving, and practice in non-scheme ports already shows that that is a bogus argument. Several members of the Committee appreciated that point only too well.

Mr. Robert Hughes: If the employers are so certain about their pledges, why will they not meet representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union and start negotiations on the conditions that will follow the scheme? Where they can reach a national agreement to have no casual labour, that would be the most constructive thing to do. I hope that the Minister will do his best to make employers get down to negotiations. That is the way to make progress.

Mr. Fowler: Precisely that offer—not the offer that the hon. Gentleman wants, but the offer of talks—has most certainly been given by the employers. The employers are saying that negotiations and talks should take place at the local level, not at the national level. That is a sensible position to be in. The National Association of Port Employers does not run the ports. The port employers are the local ports. Of course, not all of them own only one port. For example, Associated British Ports owns several ports. Therefore, negotiations should take place at the local level. The Transport and General Workers Union should examine why it will not join in such negotiations and is instructing its members to boycott them.
I recognise that the debate takes place when there is the threat of industrial action on the abolition of the scheme. I believe such action would be entirely unjustified and totally against the interests of the dockers. The only result would be to drive more trade from the scheme ports, and therefore to put at risk jobs in the ports. It cannot be in anyone's interest for there to be a strike, particularly when clear assurances have been given that there will be no return to casual working; when clear offers have been made by port employers throughout the country to discuss future arrangements in individual ports; when generous compensation has been offered in the case of any docker

—such dockers are very much the minority—who becomes redundant; and, above all, when the end of the scheme is a major step to achieving a modern ports industry—a ports industry with a future. That is in the interests of everyone working in the ports.
That goal has received wide support outside the House. It has certainly received support from the industry, which stands to gain from a more competitive ports industry. It has received support from organisations such as chambers of commerce, whose members in port areas know how the scheme's restrictions have blighted business and investment. It has received support from potential investors in port areas, in warehousing and in road haulage who, to date, have held back for fear of incurring the scheme's unique straitjacket of restrictions. Port users and port investors are persuaded of the need for the scheme's abolition simply because the case against it is so overwhelming. They have nothing to gain from strikes but everything to gain from the improved performance of our ports industry, which the ending of this scheme will bring about.
The reason we want to end this scheme is to create a better future for those living in and around dock areas. We want to ensure that investment in port areas is not discouraged and that new job-creating investment in storage, manufacturing and transport can take place. At present, the scheme damages not only the ports but the prospects of the communities around those ports. Above all, we want to achieve a better future for our ports. We want the present scheme ports to be able to compete better with ports outside the scheme and continental ports that have taken too much of our trade in the past. Our aim is that British ports can take tomorrow's opportunities in the new position created by the single European market.
We should be clear: unless ports succeed in competing, no dock labour scheme—past, present or future—will prevent the decline of those ports. That is the lesson of the scheme over the past 30 or 40 years. There is no reason why our ports should not succeed, but they will not succeed if they are held back by all the restrictions of the present dock labour scheme. For that reason, we want to see the scheme go. It has far outlived any purpose that it might have had.
The Bill is of fundamental importance for the future of our ports industry. More than that, it will remove a major barrier to the expansion of business and employment in this country. I ask the support of the House for the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps it will assist the House if I amplify the point that I made in response to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I remind the House that the Bill abolishes a scheme, and, for that reason, it is in order to debate what is to be abolished, and why it is to be abolished.

Mr. Meacher: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) pointedly said, we have just listened to a lot of bluster and a good deal of abuse, but rather little about the Bill and the arguments in Committee. As we have learnt, the Secretary of State prefers to operate in that manner. It is extraordinary that he can say that nobody has defended the scheme. I can only suppose that he so infrequently attended the Committee's proceedings that he is unaware that my hon.


Friends and I, in exhaustive detail, rejected many of the Tory attacks on the scheme as incorrect, misplaced and downright wrong-headed. I shall certainly, yet again, rebut several Tory charges tonight.
We are coming to the end of the proceedings on the Bill. The most significant point that needs to be made at this stage is that the proceedings have been a farce. No other Bill in modern times has had such a history as this one. A White Paper was introduced on one day without consultation—the Secretary of State did not seem to understand the significance of that point—and the Bill was published the next day. The Second Reading was rushed through on the first permitted day thereafter. The Committee proceedings were started—unusually—only eight days later. After an indecently short interval of only 29 hours for an eight-clause Bill, the Committee proceedings were abruptly guillotined, and a 4 am sitting was needed even to reach 29 hours. The Report and Third Reading stages are now being dealt with a mere six days after the completion of the Committee proceedings.
It is clear, and it has never been denied by Ministers, that the main reason for this precipitate pell-mell rush is that Ministers want the Bill on the statute book on the first day possible so that the port employers, who are at present prevented by law from taking on non-registered dock workers, will at the first possible moment be able to bring in workers from outside as blackleg labour to break a strike, if that is what occurs.

Mr. David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will give way in a moment, but I want to finish this point.
Frankly, the handling of the Bill has been a shameful abuse of the House. The Government have been far more concerned to secure the option of strike breaking, if it is needed, than they have ever been bothered seriously to debate the merits of the Bill.

Mr. David Davis: Are not the hon. Gentleman's complaints somewhat undermined by his own statement, I believe in the initial stages of the Committee, that this is a single-clause Bill with seven contingent clauses? We were discussing, in effect, one clause for all that time.

Mr. Meacher: If in the correct sense it is a single-clause Bill—it is a single issue Bill—and if we had very nearly completed the debate on that clause by the time that the guillotine was imposed, why did the Government impose the guillotine? If there were no other major issues left in the Bill, why did they impose the guillotine?
We know that the Government did that because they were determined from the very first day—months ago—that they would have the Bill passed by about the end of June or the first week of July so that, if industrial action took place, the Government could allow employers to bring in blackleg labour. The Government had no interest in any serious discussion of the Bill in Parliament.
Apart from the concertina-ed timetable, the Committee stage has been a farce, because the Government have clearly been determined from the outset not to accept a single amendment. I have never been involved in a Bill to which an amendment, however minor, was not seriously considered. Indeed, much of the time they have given the impression that they were not even listening. We have been

largely engaging in a dialogue of the deaf. The Ministers have simply been going through the motions and paying no serious attention to the Opposition's arguments.
None of the central contentions that we made on Second Reading and in Committee has received an answer, convincing or otherwise, from the Government. We never had any response to our central argument. Everything that the Secretary of State has said tonight shows that he was not listening. We never had any answer to the central argument that most European countries, and indeed many non-European countries, operate dock labour schemes, which, through a variety of structures, all provide for the direct involvement of a trade union and dock workers in matters of recruitment, training, welfare, medical services and redundancy. We have never had an answer to the obvious question: if the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium can have successful and efficient dock systems, why cannot we? There is complete silence; we have never had an answer to that question. If those countries can run successful systems with dock labour schemes, why cannot we?
We made the essential point that competitor countries regard their ports as part of the basic national infrastructure. Their ports receive heavy Government subsidies. The Department of Transport estimates that port costs for conventional deep-sea freight are typically 60 to 100 per cent. higher in the United Kingdom than at continental ports. That is because, as the British port authorities have estimated, port subsidies in the rest of the EEC amount to about £200 million a year. That is why British ports are not as competitive as they could be. It has nothing to do with the dock labour scheme.
However, when we pointed that out to Ministers, all they would say was that they were seeking to get agreement through the EEC to reduce port subsidies. They ignored the effective point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in Committee that, when the issue is nuclear weapons, this Thatcherite Government demand to negotiate from strength but, when it comes to port subsidies, they are content to negotiate from a position of weakness. Their real concern is not to cut port subsidies, but to hammer the British dock worker. If only we had a Government who valued and trained their work force in the docks instead of regarding them as the enemy within.

Mr. Tim Janman: If I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is trying to make the point that the existence of the dock labour scheme and its abolition are completely irrelevant to international competitiveness, vis-a-vis the docks' competitors in Europe. If that is so, why is it that, in the short time since the Government announced their intention to abolish the scheme, one major timber importer, who is currently importing timber from the far east into Europe via Rotterdam, has already contacted the chief executive of the port of Tilbury to say that he will be interested, once the scheme has gone, in bringing those imports into Europe through Tilbury rather than through Rotterdam?

Mr. Meacher: After the results of the county council elections, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman will certainly be leaving us next time, so we are always glad to hear his valedictory. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why Tilbury has done so exceedingly well while being a scheme port. Tilbury has been extremely successful. It is


well managed, it has an excellent dock work force, its profits have substantially increased over previous years and its productivity has increased as fast as anywhere. I doubt whether ships are turned round faster anywhere in Europe than they are at Tilbury, and that is while there is still a dock labour scheme.
We never had an answer to our key contention: if the dock labour scheme so inhibits efficiency and modernisation, why is it that productivity in scheme ports has been every bit as high as that of any non-scheme port? In 1965, scheme ports handled 261 million tonnes, with 65,000 registered dock workers. In 1986, they handled 308 million tonnes, with 10,400 dock workers, that is a 730 per cent. increase in productivity in terms of volume per worker in 20 years. We would be glad if the Secretary of State could tell us of any other industry that could match an increase in productivity of 730 per cent. in 20 years.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is simply taking credit for the job losses in the scheme ports. He has raised the question of productivity and Tilbury, but will he now explain to the House why the Department of Transport's survey, which was published only this month, shows that Tilbury and Southampton are charging nearly 30 and 40 per cent. more respectively than non-scheme Felixstowe for handling the same container cargo?

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should ask the management, because, if that is a management policy, it is certainly consistent with a great deal of success at Tilbury. Tilbury has probably been the most successful port in our country, despite the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who represents either it or an adjoining constituency, running it down. If it is its management's decision to price at that level, it has not prevented that port's considerable success and rising profits.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should remind us how much public money has gone to the Port of London Authority, and therefore to Tilbury, over the years. He is making a point about Tilbury, so will he remind us of that position?

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible for providing that money. I take it that he is not asking whether it can be justified. He did it, and we are perfectly well aware why he did it. London and Liverpool were in peculiarly difficult circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was a Minister responsible for transport in 1980, came to the House with a Bill significantly to increase subsidies, partly to take account of difficult trading conditions and partly to bring about redundancies with proper compensation. When this happens in the private sector, the right hon. Gentleman gives us a lesson about successive productivity. When it happens in the public sector, we are told that it is all a matter of redundancies. This must apply both ways. There have been considerable reductions in the number of dock workers as a result of voluntary severance, and there has been a huge increase in productivity.
Despite our exchanges across the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State has not answered my central question: which other industry has matched the productivity of the scheme ports? He cannot answer that question.

Mr. Fowler: Of course I can. The non-scheme ports have far exceeded the productivity of scheme ports. That is a matter of fact.

Mr. Meacher: That is the point that I was coming to, and it is not true. That is precisely the kind of answer that we have received from Ministers throughout the Committee stage and it demonstrates my point. Ministers simply do not listen. They do not provide evidence or arguments. They simply make assertions and when we check the facts we discover that those assertions are not justified.
In 1987, the last year for which complete figures are available, each scheme-port docker moved on average 13,346 tonnes of cargo, while each non-scheme port docker moved on average 13,655 tonnes, almost exactly the same amount. That minuscule difference has occurred despite the fact that non-scheme ports enjoy the huge advantage of geographically strategic locations on the east coast so that they can benefit fully from the switch in Britain's trade over the past 15 years to trade with the EEC. The Minister's arguments, statements or flourishes are simply not true. They cannot be validated.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State is trying to claim that more valuable cargoes came through specific ports. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will consider the fact that, historically, certain cargoes came through certain ports. For example, Dundee was a jute centre. Jute is not as valuable an import as advanced technological imports such as computers or video recorders. The Secretary of State's case does not stand up. He obviously does not accept that Tilbury has been a successful port.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has provided a convincing answer to a point which the Secretary of State was trying to make from a sedentary position. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will develop his point if he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State should accept that Tilbury has been one of the most successful ports. It is remarkable that, because it is a scheme port, the Secretary of State will not say that it has been such a profound success.

Mr. David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Meacher: No, I will not give way. I have given way to both hon. Members and I will not give way to them again.

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I think that the Secretary of State is abusing his position. He has already intervened three times.
We have not received an answer to our central contention that the abolition of the dock labour scheme will lead to the return of casualisation and a general worsening of the terms and conditions of dock workers. The Secretary of State repeated tonight what the Government have said endlessly throughout the Committee stage, that 90 per cent. of employers have issued a press release with a wonderful rhetorical flourish


claiming that there would be no return to casual labour. That was about as convincing as Chamberlain waving a piece of paper and saying, "Peace in our time."
The Secretary of State must be deaf or obtuse. He is not responding to our arguments. In Devlin 2 in 1970, the employers made the same promise that they have made today. Within 18 months of that statement, after the collapse of two companies, the employers jerked back into life the temporary unattached register—in other words, they reintroduced casualisation.
The Government have not responded to the fact that we pointed out that Mr. Peter de Savary, who is one of the big port employers, has made public his intention to use casual labour for his new terminal on the Isle of Grain. The Secretary of State may screw up his face because this is a bit embarrassing. Mr. de Savary has said that, and if Mr. de Savary has said it, I for one believe him. We have had no ministerial reply or comment on that observation.
There has also been a deafening silence from Ministers on another point. In an industry in which traffic constantly fluctuates, the employers' obvious objective is to reduce to a core labour force and employ the remainder on a casual basis. It is absolutely manifest that that is what they intend to do. Ministers and the Secretary of State have simply said that casualisation hardly exists in non-scheme ports. Not even that is correct, because it exists at a level of about 6 per cent.
The Secretary of State argued again tonight that the same conditions will apply after the abolition of the scheme. However, that ignores the crucial point which we continue to make—that the dock labour scheme provides a marker for proper standards. Once the scheme has disappeared and as new cowboy operators enter the industry, commercial market pressures will drive down standards in the absence of a statutory framework. We have had no reply to that argument. The port industry will be the latest in a long line of industries in which Government deregulation of the labour market has led to a levelling down of standards, not a levelling up. There is already pertinent evidence that that will happen.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about the buses?

Mr. Meacher: The resident buffoon from the Committee, who I see has been let out for the day, has made a very unwise comparison with the buses. The experience with the buses illustrates well the kind of thing that is likely to happen in the dock industry. It has experienced a worsening of standards and labour conditions and a reduction in routes.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I have replied to him.
Two weeks ago, Mr. Nicholas Finney, the director of the port employers, called for
the integration and assimilation of registered dock workers into the rest of the port employers' work forces.
What lies behind those weasel words is revealed by the port employers' current treatment of their workers who are not protected by the scheme. Therefore, proposals relating to non-registered workers at Swansea, recently put forward by the Associated British Ports, call for a reduction in engineering staff from 68 to 16, a cut of more than three quarters. Those staff are to be replaced by contractors. That is the latest in a long line of job cuts made by ABP since its privatisation six or seven years ago.
That shows that, with the dock labour scheme gone, registered dock workers will be, to use Mr. Finney's words, assimilated and integrated right out of their jobs, with casualisation no doubt disguised as contracting out. The port employers have refused to respond to any of those concerns. Indeed, they have taken the opportunity to scrap existing national negotiating machinery that has been in place since 1920—27 years before the introduction of the dock labour scheme. Nothing could make the employers' intentions clearer.
We do not need to make predictions. I have already drawn attention to a new contract of employment. Again, the Secretary of State has completely ignored the evidence. I shall be glad to pass the contract on to him. It is dated 27 April, three weeks after the abolition of this scheme was announced and two months before it could be abolished. It is a contract from one port employer, Mersey Container Terminals Ltd. Contrary to the smooth assurances that we have heard again tonight about the easy transition to local collective bargaining, the contract makes it clear that there will be no collective bargaining, national or local, and that any dock worker who does not sign an individualised contract of employment, drawn up by the employer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, will simply be sacked.
That is the position facing dock workers. So much for the Government's assurances. Like the employers' assurances about casualisation, they are simply not worth the paper they are written on.

Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Gentleman can either plead his case because of casualisation or tell the House, as he has just done, that those employees are being asked to sign a contract of employment. A contract of employment is designed so that an employee has a stated term of contract employment. Therefore, that cannot be casualisation.

Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has just joined the debates today, seems to understand so little and totally misunderstands the point that I was making. I can give him only the arguments, not the ability to comprehend them. All I was saying was that there is a contract of employment which an employee can either sign or not sign, but if he did not he would be sacked. That is not exactly the local collective bargaining which the Secretary of State said would be the basis on which the ports industry would be run from now on.
The Bill is fundamentally about the essence of the Government's opposition to the scheme and their objection to joint decision making and their hostility to the 50:50 employer-trade union representation on the dock labour boards. They repudiate any limits to management's so-called rights to manage absolutely, and tell workers what they are to do. These themes run throughout their critique of the scheme. In that respect, the dock labour scheme is perhaps the nearest we have in this country to industrial democracy and worker participation. That is why the Government hate it so much. The Government call it blocking; we call it co-operation.

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.
It is an instance of workers taking responsibility, and that is why it is anathema to the Government.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make a speech later, but I am now drawing to a close.
For several years, in cahoots with the employers, the Government have planned and plotted the destruction of the scheme. It is becoming clearer by the day why they finally pulled the trigger six weeks ago. Ministers have never denied the scenario first made public by the Channel 4 programme "Dispatches" on 12 October last year. It was then stated that abolition would be saved for what was called a "political rainy day".
I am sure that the Secretary of State will not like this because it is the truth which he has been trying to conceal from the nation ever since the announcement was made. The programme presenter continued:
Tory MPs and industry sources have suggested to Dispatches that should the Government get into serious difficulties, for example over the balance of payments, then they would use the repeal of the scheme to rally their supporters and public opinion against the unions.
It was a cynical picture of industrial provocation for political ends, but that is exactly what has happened.
It is ironic that, on the very day set by the Government for the completion of the Bill's passage through the House, the bungling and mismanagement of the Government's economic policies have forced up intererst rates to 14 per cent., which will wrench up the retail prices index another notch, exacerbate the price-wage spiral and, eventually, worsen mortgage misery still further.
If there is a fitting epitaph for this despicable, politically motivated little Bill, surely that is it. The Bill is as contemptible as the Chancellor's arrogance in the face of his own manifest failing—but, thank God, it will not be long before we are called on to reverse the destructiveness of both.

Mr. John Townend: I rise with great pleasure to support the Third Reading of the Bill, whose enactment will be an important milestone for the once great port of Hull. I am privileged to represent the hinterland in the eastern suburbs of that port, and I have been fighting for the abolition of the dock labour scheme for many years—as chairman of the finance committee of the county borough of Hull, as leader of Humberside county council and as Member of Parliament for part of the area.
When I was a boy, Hull was the third port of the greatest empire that the world has ever seen. Today it is not even in the top 10. Why? It is not because of lack of investment; there has been plenty of that. Nor is it because of lack of opportunity: as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, ports on the east coast have had their opportunities. There was enormous scope for expansion when we joined the Common Market, and it was inevitable that trade would move progressively from the Atlantic, the old Commonwealth and Liverpool to Hull and the Common Market. Hull was the gateway to the continent for the industrial heartland of Yorkshire and—with the opening of the M62—Lancashire. It should have had everything going for it: it should have become the Europort of Britain, but it did not.
Which ports benefited? Felixstowe benefited. When I was a boy Felixstowe was a creek with an old wharf, in the middle of nowhere and with no communications. Why did Felixstowe get the trade? Because it was not a national

dock labour scheme port and had excellent industrial relations. As a result, by 1987 it was working no less than 2·5 times as much tonnage as Hull, and last year its tonnage increased by another 24 per cent.
It was not only Felixstowe that took Hull's trade. Hull has lost trade to dozens of private wharves that have sprung up along the Humber, the Ouse and the Trent. Today those private wharves work more tonnage than the once great port of Hull. It is a tragedy that from the pier in Hull the ships can be seen sailing past on their way to the private wharves. All that capital investment has gone to waste, and all those expensive facilities are unused.
Why has the scheme had such a devastating effect on ports such as Hull? [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not."] It has. It cannot be denied that Hull has declined from being the third port to not being even in the top 10 and that has happened principally because of the monopoly power of the trade unions. The Transport and General Workers Union has abused that power, and the effect on trade has been devastating. Let me give three examples.
Hull invested in a new container terminal, which is now lying idle because we could not reach an agreement with the dockers on reasonable levels of pay. There are three gantry cranes in the terminal. A similar gantry crane in Grimsby is manned by 12 dockers, but they man it only when there is a ship in. When there is not, they are put on to other work. I dare say that in Felixstowe or Rotterdam the manning would be much lower. But Hull, with three cranes, does not man them with 36 men; the union insisted on 66. What is worse, it insisted on 66 men not only when there is shipping but when there is not. The horror story does not end there. Even more diabolical is the fact that the union demanded tea breaks, lunch breaks, and permanent overtime for those 66 men—up to 6.30 pm every night even when there is no shipping. Who has heard of an industry where the workers are paid overtime for doing no work whatsoever?
Opposition Members do not like listening to the facts. They do not like hearing what happens in the north of England and about why many of its industrial areas are being driven into the ground. I hope that when the Bill is passed, decent manning levels will be achieved and that Hull's container terminal will be reopened.
At Christmas, North Sea Ferries wanted to bring in its last ferry on Christmas eve, unload it, and leave it in port until after the Christmas holiday. The dockers demanded payment not only for Christmas eve but for Christmas day, Boxing day and the bank holiday.

Mr. Wareing: Just as the hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Townend: To put a little icing on the cake, the dockers also wanted a day off in lieu. The consequence was that that the ferry did not dock there at all.
The practice of welting is still prevalent in Hull, whereby one half to two thirds of a gang work and the rest disappear off to the golf course, to run little businesses, or to drive taxis. That proves that manning levels are ridiculously high, which is why trade has been driven away by exorbitant costs and why there is no discipline in the work place or in industry generally. What other industry would allow workers who are supposed to be on the job to disappear?

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The House of Commons does.

Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, so that Conservative Members can moonlight in the City.

Mr. Townend: Are the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman speaking for themselves or for their hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)?
Not satisfied with its grip on the scheme ports over the years, the Transport and General Workers Union encouraged the last Labour Government to extend the scheme. Tonight, we heard that if Labour were by any chance re-elected they would extend it to inland ports, depots and containers. Thankfully, their re-election is most unlikely.
One of the scheme's most despicable aspects is the power it gives registered dockers to steal other men's jobs by having tasks classified as registered dock work. In Hull, they succeeded in doing so in respect of the coopers and then tried to take over a local warehousing and groupage depot in Springfield way. Because the employers would not give way, the dockers forced the closure of that depot and many non-dockers lost their jobs. The same has been done in respect of riggers. North Sea Ferries was forced to allocate some riggers' jobs to dock workers. One rigging company in Hull that is not registered to employ registered dock workers, whose proprietor lives in my constituency, has for several years been prevented from recruiting more staff.
It is not only Hull but the whole country that suffers. Millions of pounds of investment has been wasted, and millions of pounds of additional investment has been put into non-scheme ports to bypass scheme ports. Before the scheme, British ports—particularly the London docks—served as the entrepreneur of the world. Goods came here from all over the globe and were transhipped to Europe. All that trade has been lost to Rotterdam because of the scheme ports' appalling reputation for overmanning and high costs. That has cost our balance of payments billions of pounds, and we cannot afford that to happen any longer.
The national dock labour scheme increases the cost both of importing and of exporting. It is a tax on every consumer in the country and a tax on British industrial exports.

Mr. Wareing: As the hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Committee, he would not have heard my point concerning Rotterdam. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it has a dock labour scheme? Does he realise also that 15 per cent. of the dock workers there are idle at any one time? My evidence for that is the comments of the personnel director of the port employers of Rotterdam.

Mr. Townend: When I was in local government I went to Rotterdam to see what was done there and what I saw was amazing. There was no overmanning there. It did not have 66 men on three cranes when it should have had 12. It has a scheme, but it is nothing like ours. When I went there it had not had a strike for 15 years.
The scheme is a tax on exports and imports that we can no longer afford and the Government's decision to abolish it was right. My only criticism is that the Government have left the abolition of one of the last pieces of the Socialist corporate state far too long. However, there is an old saying, "Better late than never".
If there is a dock strike it will do untold damage to the scheme ports, but it will do even greater damage to the dockers themselves. If they strike after the Bill has gone

through they will be liable to be dismissed and they will lose the equivalent of £35,000 each. I have far more confidence in the common sense of the British docker, particularly the Yorkshire docker, than Opposition Members.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. We were not allowed many hours to discuss the Bill in Committee, but we spent a lot of the time that we were allowed trying to get the Government Back Benchers to speak. However, they were effectively silenced by the Secretary of State. He was so shocked by the performance of his Ministers that he was not going to let his Back Benchers speak. The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is the deliberate intention to get the abolition of the scheme on the statute book so that, if the dockers go on strike, they will be sacked and lose all their entitlements. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that, because we have been anxiously asking the Secretary of State whether that was his intention.

Mr. Townend: I did not say that that was the purpose of the Bill. I said that, if the dockers went on strike, they should be careful because they would put themselves in that position, and that is a fact. It is a good job that I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, because if I had been I could not have sat through its proceedings without refuting some of the rubbish that: I have heard tonight.
No one can get away from the fact that the port of Hull has withered on the vine because of the national dock labour scheme. Not only dockers' jobs have been lost, but jobs in all the ancillary industries. That has been a major factor in the decline as an industrial centre of the area that I represent.
Once we are given the freedom to compete on equal terms with Felixstowe and the wharves, I am convinced that management and men in the docks will get together, win back the trade and rebuild the prosperity of our once great city and that vine will flourish once more.

Mr. Wareing: By some standards we have had a long debate on the Bill, but, as I have pointed out time and again, it was undoubtedly planned some time ago, not with any idea of improving the British economy but rather as one of the articles of faith that the Government decided that they had to keep with their crackpot friends in the Adam Smith Institute. That is the source of the Bill.
It has been argued that the scheme ports have been inefficient in comparison with the non-scheme ports. Much has been made of the fact that over the past 30 or 40 years the pattern of trade with Britain has altered considerably, moving away from the Atlantic, which was the source of the prosperity of ports such as Liverpool and Glasgow, to Europe. There was bound to be a pull to ports in the south-east of Britain and that is the real factor behind the growth of Felixstowe. To some extent Felixstowe is to the Secretary of State for Employment what Luton Town is to the Minister for Sport; it is held up as a symbol that we should all copy—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Wareing: My speech is hardly under way. If Conservative Members restrain themselves I shall allow them to intervene later.
The port employers are undoubtedly prejudiced against the trade union movement being allowed a voice in determining the conditions of work in the docks. As I told the Committee, Mr. Keith Beckton—the personnel director of Tees and Hartlepool port authority—said that the port had not recruited since 1977 and would not do so until the scheme was abolished. That is why the average age of a registered dock worker increased from 42 in 1973 to 47 in 1988. The port employers are the managers; it is no use blaming the workers. The port employers organise the dock system, and on the whole this country has had rather poor management.
The non-scheme ports have gained from location and, to some extent, from discrimination by Government and employers. The Government have no plans to restructure the port industry. They claim that the £4·6 million cost of the national dock labour scheme is a burden on the industry. If the Government were really interested in the burdens on our ports, they would be concerned about other matters such as the £28 million a year that the ports have to pay for lighthouse dues. Britain is the only country in the European Community that expects its port employers to pay lighthouse dues. It is also the only country that insists that port employers pay for the various navigational aids.
The House should refuse the Bill a Third Reading because the Government have not done their homework; they have been concerned only with exercising their prejudice against the dock labour scheme and the trade union movement. They refer to the competitiveness of Rotterdam and Hamburg, but they should visit those ports, as I have visited Rotterdam, to find out why they are so successful. The Dutch ports, including Rotterdam, and many other European ports are municipally owned. The port of Rotterdam and its wharves are owned by Rotterdam city council. All the dredging is therefore the responsibility of that local authority. The navigational aids—incidentally, Rotterdam is 30 miles inland—are under the control of the local authority with financial assistance from the Dutch Government.
That is the difference. The other EEC countries regard ports as part of the essential transport infrastructure and believe that there must be planning. However, planning is anathema to the Government. That is why they do not do their homework. If they did their homework, they might find that their ideological prejudices led to inconvenient answers. That is why we have been presented with a tinpot Bill instead of a measure that takes into account what is happening elsewhere in the EEC.
I have spoken to Mr. Jansen, the assistant director of the Rotterdam port employers' association. He told me that the port employed 9,634 dock workers in 1987—about the total number of registered dock workers in this country. Just over 7,000 of those dock workers were directly employed, but that number did not allow the port of Rotterdam to operate efficiently.
How, therefore, does the port manage to operate efficiently? It has what is called an employed labour pool, and 2,200, or 35 per cent., of Rotterdam dock workers are drawn from that pool. That assistant director of the Rotterdam port employers' association said to me, "You must realise, Mr. Wareing, that the trade of a port fluctuates, so there has to be a surplus of labour. Each

Dutch port employer accepts that there needs to be a 7 per cent. surplus of labour." Therefore, 15 per cent. of the dock labour force in the port of Rotterdam is idle.
What happens to those workers? The port employers do not make them redundant. They say that they will need trained dock workers in the future. The Dutch Government finance the training of the employed labour pool to the tune of 55 per cent. of the cost; the rest is met by the port employers. That does not happen only in Rotterdam.
The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), is not with us now, but he told us earlier that a training levy would be a burden. We disputed that statement. We said that we regarded training as an investment. The Minister, however, said that he regarded the levy as a burden. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) then pointed out that the levy is the means whereby training can be given. If the absent Minister were here, I would tell him that in Hamburg 15 per cent. of the dock workers are drawn from a labour pool that is similar to the one in Rotterdam. The port users have to pay a levy for those who remain idle. The levy is a contribution towards their training and retraining. That ensures an efficient and competitive work force in Hamburg.
Those two examples could be repeated many times over. The other members of the European Economic Community pay light dues and all the other levies. The Belgian Government have paid 70 per cent. of the cost of a new container terminal. They are not fussing. They do not have trivial prejudices. They are getting to the heart of the matter.

Mr. Janman: Instead of going round Europe talking to the management of foreign ports, may I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to the management of some of the British scheme ports, particularly Tilbury? If he does, he will learn that one of its biggest problems is the refusal of a number of people who work in that port to be retrained because they know that they have jobs for life. There is no incentive for them to accept retraining. Abolition of the scheme will lead to Tilbury improving its skill profile and its work force.

Mr. Wareing: I am interested not only in Tilbury but in all the ports in the United Kingdom. I am not satisfied that the Government are sufficiently interested to ensure that there will be proper training. It is no use saying that people in the non-scheme ports receive training. Felixstowe has been mentioned. There may not be cowboy employers now, but they may exist as a result of the Bill. What will the Government do about them?
The Secretary of State talked about casualisation. He believes the port employers who say that there will not be casualisation. There is 6 per cent. now, but he argues that it will not go much beyond 6 per cent. Perhaps he thinks that there is an inevitable minimum figure. Let us suppose that he is wrong, although I know that Ministers in the Thatcherite Government always go by the Alexander Solzhenitsyn maxim of, "We never make mistakes." Let us suppose that on this occasion they have made a mistake. Can the Secretary of State say what he will do if he is wrong?
If casualisation rises to 10, 12 or 20 per cent., what action will the Secretary of State take? I am willing to give way if he wants to answer. Obviously he has not got an


answer. Either he does not care or he does not know. He has no answer to the question because no one knows the answer. We do not know what the percentage of casualisation will be. Certainly the Minister does not know. We do not know whether we can trust what the port employers have told us. The Secretary of State has the opportunity to tell the House precisely what he will do if our worst fears are realised.
If we allow chaos to develop in the docks because there is no planning, no scheme and no attempt to finance the expenditure that port employers are compelled to make, more and more of our trade will go to the continent. It is happening already. Ministers talk about Felixstowe but it is small beer in comparison with Rotterdam and Hamburg.
In 1986 over 3 million tonnes of British exports to places outside the European Community went not through Felixstowe, Liverpool, Southampton or Hull, but through Rotterdam. One would have expected that exports to the United States would go through the ports on the west coast of Britain, but 341,000 tonnes went through Rotterdam. Over 4 million tonnes of exports to far eastern countries from Iraq to Japan went through Rotterdam. When we find that 1,899,100 tonnes of imports from the United States came not through Liverpool, Southampton or Felixstowe but through Rotterdam we realise what is happening.
It is no use the Secretary of State nodding his head to show that he knows all this. His Bill is a mouse compared with the tremendous efforts and vision that are needed if our ports are to be competitive with those in the rest of the European Community.

Mr. Tim Janman: Throughout the Second Reading debate, in Committee and on Report we have heard a great deal of speculation about the consequences of abolishing the scheme and about the opportunities for job creation and employment in the port industries.
Initially, I wish to update the House on what has taken place in Tilbury between the Second Reading debate and the Third Reading debate tonight. I should like to introduce into the debate some facts and observations, in contrast to the theories that have been put forward by the Opposition. Already, at Tilbury one major operator has shown a great deal of interest in developing a 50-acre site roll-on/roll-off cargo handling facility at Tilbury for commercial vehicles. That operator identified his interest only after the abolition of the scheme had been announced.
On Second Reading, I related the problem of a fruit cold store that an operator wished to set up in Tilbury. That enterprise and initiative was scuppered because of the 19th-century, Luddite attitude of a small number of shop stewards who insisted that, while the potential employers' drivers were driving the fruit from the store out and around the United Kingdom, registered dockers would stand and watch them loading it. I am pleased to tell the House that, as a result of the scheme being abolished, the entrepreneur who wanted to initiate that cold fruit store development has returned to Tilbury and is once again interested in pursuing that venture.
I shall repeat for emphasis my remarks to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about a major timber importer who previously would not come to

Tilbury or any other scheme port in the United Kingdom, but is now interested in moving from Rotterdam to Tilbury to import timber from the far east into Britain.
I have given three specific examples from the past few weeks that are a clear measure of the great opportunities for Tilbury as a result of the abolition. In addition, many other companies are eager to initiate discussions with the management of the port to consider new ventures that can be started there. A conservative estimate is that over the next 12 to 18 months, after the scheme has been abolished, between 200 and 300 new jobs will be created because companies are satisfying the needs of their customers.
Inevitably, in the short term there will be a number of redundancies in the port of Tilbury, where there is a surplus of at least 100 registered dockers. However, in 12 to 18 months 100 non-jobs will be eliminated and 200 to 300 real jobs will be created as a result of people meeting customers' needs in a free enterprise environment. That is a huge gain in the number of real jobs being created and a net gain in total jobs in the next 12 to 18 months. Throughout my 18 months in the House, that is exactly what I have said would happen, if the Government bit the bullet and abolished this appalling impediment to employment and job creation.
s I said, there will be a number of redundancies at Tilbury but their terms will be very generous. When the redundancies have been made, the port will be in a very strong position to take advantage of the opportunities that will descend upon it, and the management of the port will be able to improve the skill and age profile of its work force.
One of the biggest problems in improving the skills of the existing work force is that many of them—this is understandable particularly with the age profile that exists—are not interested in learning new tricks. There is no reason why they should put in the effort to learn them, because, irrespective of whether they volunteer or co-operate with management to learn new tricks, under the auspices of the scheme they have jobs for life. Hence, particularly among some of the more elderly employees in Tilbury, there is a resistance to retraining and, therefore, a resistance to enabling management to move with the times in terms of technology and so on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Do I gather that an Opposition Member wishes to intervene?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Order.

Mr. Janman: What is the problem?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has something gone wrong?

Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the Chair, not Opposition Members, kept order in the House. Labour Members become more clown-like as the days go by.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) please continue his speech?

Mr. Janman: I move from the question of employment to the subject of—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Order.

Mr. Janman: Does the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) wish to intervene? If not, perhaps he will remain silent.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was making a legitimate point of order, in that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was speaking not from his place but in the aisle or alleyway between the Government Benches.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order raised with me. Perhaps the hon. Member for Thurrock will now continue with his speech.

Mr. Janman: It is clear that the Labour party has moved into the alleyway of politics.
I come to a more recent event appertaining to the Bill, and that is the ballot that has been held as a result of the Government deciding to abolish the scheme. In the ballot, 67 per cent. of those entitled to vote voted for strike action, but 33 per cent.—one third of those entitled to vote—said no to strike action, or certainly did not say yes; they abstained on the question.
Why are Ron Todd and the Transport and General Workers Union refusing to give a breakdown of the figures port by port to the management of the individual ports? What do they have to hide? The answer is that, with a ratio such as I described, a number of ports did not vote to endorse strike action.
Even if the courts decide, or have decided—I am somewhat out of date on the recent legal decision—that the wording of the ballot paper gave a legal endorsement for a strike, for those individual ports without a majority vote for strike action within those ports, or within the employer organisations across them, there would be no legal criterion for strike action. [Interruption.] One cannot have a national ballot and say that one is in dispute with one's employer, or claim that a particular set of dockers are in dispute with their employer, if the majority of dockers working for that employer have voted against strike action.
Unless the TGWU is willing to give the figures, at least on an employer-by-employer, if not on a port-by-port, basis, one cannot with any certainty have a national strike and assume that in all instances there is majority support for strike action on an employer-by-employer basis. It is conceivable that those in many ports have said no to any suggestion that they are in dispute with their employer.
In fact, as we know, there is no dispute with any employer. The ballot, the charade through which the trade union movement is going, is totally political. Indeed, I quote a Mr. Kevin Hussey, a shop steward in the port of Tilbury:
Of course you've got to defy the anti-trade union laws. This is a political strike. We've explained that to Todd. Todd knows that, but in fact whether we like it or not, they've as one paper put it, body swerved round it. But sooner or later we are going to be tied up with it.
In other words, there are individuals working in some of our ports who, come what may, will try to initiate politically motivated strike action which is destined to harm the interests of the ports, the economy and the dockers they are supposed to represent.
Why does the Labour party support strike action to keep a scheme that they would not bring back if, God forbid, it forms the next Government? Why does it support strike action that would impede job creation? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West has said consistently that, if strike action were taken, his party would have no choice but to support it.
Why does the Labour party support strike action that will undermine the viability of 40 British ports? Why has it supported strike action to keep a scheme when, if anybody, with the exception of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, suggested applying it to any other major industry, they would be laughed out of court? People would not laugh the hon. Member for Oldham, West out of court, because they do not take his utterances seriously. It is interesting that in Committee he said:
I would expect a future Labour Government to extend those rights to other industries."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1989; c. 67.]
The hon. Gentleman says that at a time when even the Soviet Union is beginning to understand that a Stalinist and planned approach to the economy and to industries within it is not an intelligent, forward-looking or sensible way to approach the running of one's economy or to catalyse wealth or wealth creation.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, even in the new revisionist period of the Labour party, is saying that we should take what everybody with an iota of common sense agrees has been bad for the docks and impose it upon other industries. He has not said which industries or how many, but he would like to impose it across the British economy. That is the implication of his remarks.
The futile posturing of the Opposition is not worthy of a party that is supposed to be preparing for government. It will only encourage dockers to strike which will harm prospects for our ports, the country and most importantly for the dockers themselves. My message to my dockers is to keep working and help the port of Tilbury grasp its new opportunities and go from strength to strength. In doing that, they will have my full backing and I am sure they will have the full support of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. George Galloway: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) spoke with the authentic voice of the Tory Back-Bench backwoods engine which is driving the Government to this extraordinary path. The carefully contrived early-day motions and the student japes over the years have been determined to pick a fight with Britain's dockers and finally to bring them down. The ideological cave dwellers, of whom the hon. Member for Thurrock is a splendid example, are doing this country a gross disservice. All the dissembling in the world from the Ministers about the reasons behind the legislation and the extraordinary way it has been introduced will not hide the truth from the country.
The Secretary of State affected to be greatly surprised that Opposition Members dwelt on the extraordinary and irregular way in which the issue has been brought before the House. I cannot believe that the Government are genuine in their puzzlement at that. The Bill was not mentioned in their manifesto or the Queen's Speech. A matter of months ago the Prime Minister said that the Government had no plans to introduce such a measure and only a few weeks before the White Paper was introduced, the Minister said that there were no plans to abolish the scheme. That was followed by a White Paper and, the next day, by the publication of the Bill. Either there was a lightning conversion by the Government to the Bill, or they were deceiving the House when they gave their answers on the previous occasions, solemn and otherwise, that I have mentioned. If the Government do not


understand why that is important to parliamentary democracy and to those who care about it, they are not fit to be a Government.
The Bill has been brought before us with unseemly haste and there has been an unseemly performance by Back Bench Conservative Members in the hours that I have spent listening to the debate today. They have carried out giggling, sneaky, public schoolboy japes, they have run around on the Back Benches whispering points to each other and have raced off to the Library to photocopy pieces of literature to pass among themselves.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galloway: I will give way in a moment.
Conservative Back Bench Members have an unseemly and shabby desire to rubbish and eventually smash a section of the British work force that has served this country well. I represent many dockers because part of the port of Glasgow is in my constituency. In the past few weeks, I have spent much time in the company of dockers and their families. There are few less pleasant sights than to see well-upholstered, sleek and wealthy Conservative Members insulting a body of men who work hard for a living and who have done so for many centuries.

Mr. Riddick: It is a little rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about the supposed misbehaviour of Conservative Members. Only 10 minutes ago, he and many of his hon. Friends were making a mountain out of a molehill about the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was simply wandering along the aisle. Labour Members even raised a point of order about it.

Mr. Galloway: I shall not stoop to answer that intervention—

Mr. Riddick: It is true.

Mr. Galloway: It was, sadly, up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard.
There are few less pleasant or edifying sights than people who would not last a day working in Britain's docks maligning and sneering at the dockers of this country, describing them as dodgers, bobbers, welters, work shy, strike-happy, lazy, good-for-nothing men. How many Conservative Members could exchange their lounge suits for a docker's jacket? How many of them could exchange their briefcases for a docker's hook? I see that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is giggling. He is one of the most unseemly examples of all, and his grandfather is turning in his grave at his performance.
How many Conservative Members could live on a docker's wage? Some Conservative Members have said that dockers are well paid. That is rich coming from Members of Parliament who earn two, three or four times what a docker earns. It is little short of disgusting for Conservative Members with three, four, five or 10 directorships to malign dockers as they have tonight and on previous occasions.
It is about time that those giggling public schoolboys got down from their ivory towers and went among dock workers and their families. There is a fear—perhaps the more civilised Conservative Members think it is an ill-founded fear—that the spectre of the old days is once again stalking the streets in our dock areas. Of course,

Conservative Members may know nothing about those old days because that is not a part of our history that they care to study.
In the old days, men underwent the indignity of queueing to catch the foreman's eye to get a day's work and a day's wages. I am talking about the old days when dockers fought each other outside the docks, so desperate were they for a day's work; the old days when the gaffer could go into a hostelry near the docks and find the gantry lined with whiskies for him so that he never had to buy a drink. Those whiskies had been put there by dockers who were desperate to win the favour of the man who gave them their daily bread. I am talking about the old days when matchboxes containing half-crowns were passed to the gaffers by desperate dockers who were looking for a day's work.
The Minister says that the employers have given assurances that those old days will not recur, but it is not true that they have given such assurances. What is true is that they have press-released that they have no intention of returning to casualisation. If they really were intent on giving assurances, they would sit down with the dockers' trade union tomorrow and sign assurances to guarantee that there would be no return to casualisation or to those bad old days.
I genuinely believe that the Government are seriously out of kilter with the developing public mood of the country. People understand that the Government are deliberately seeking a fight with the dockers. People understand that the Government have saved this up for a political rainy day and that this is that political rainy day. The summer of industrial discontent is already well under way. In all the by-elections, all the opinion polls and all the objective tests of public opinion, the Government can be seen to be losing their way rapidly. That is why they have decided that this is the time to pick a fight with the dockers.
Some Conservative Members think that the dockers are a pushover. In the past few weeks I have spent some time taking the pulse of the determination of the dock workers in this country. If there is a dock strike—heaven knows, the dockers do not want it and the Labour party does not want it, not the brand new, policy review Labour party, although the Government and their backwoodsmen clearly do want it—the Government had better not rely on any lack of firmness or resolve on the part of the dockers to defend the rights that they have won over many decades of struggle.
Neither should the Government underestimate the public sympathy that the dockers will be able to muster, contrary to what happened in industrial disputes in previous years. The dockers are a relatively small group of hard-working and patriotic men who have a strong sense of the dignity of labour—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about ghosting and bobbing?

Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman refers to ghosting and bobbing, but he is particularly well-upholstered. I should like to see him on a quayside with a docker's hook in his hand because he would not last half a day, never mind a day.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Galloway: I am finishing my speech now, so I shall not give way.
The dockers are a group of hard-working, patriotic men with a strong sense of community, whose work the public will quickly come to value—especially if there is an industrial dispute—and which they will evaluate rather more highly than they do the mob of Conservative Back Benchers and Ministers who think that they are doing a wonderful thing in dishing the dockers this evening.

Mr. Bellingham: We have heard some colourful language and perhaps even some impressive rhetoric, but when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) talks about cave dwellers, his is forgetting that the neolithic tendency is on his Benches, from which we have not heard a single word about expansion, about growth or about the enhanced prospects of many dockers in many ports. We have not heard a single word about some of the east coast ports, which are now scheme ports, but which will go from strength to strength. The neolithic tendency and the cave dwellers are to be found on the Opposition side of the Chamber. If there was a Martian in the Gallery who had had the chance to look at the facts of the case and to hear the speeches made by Conservative and by Opposition Members, that Martian would be dumbfounded and thunderstruck by the attitude of Opposition Members.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hillhead on one point, and that is that dockers are a noble band of people. I have the highest possible regard for the dockers in my constituency. However, many have said to me that, in their hearts, they knew that the scheme could not continue.
I will confine most of my remarks to my experiences in King's Lynn. King's Lynn was once one of the foremost ports in the land. In the 16th century, it was ranked No. 2 in the country. It has obviously gone well down the chart. In 1970, there were 130 registered dock workers in King's Lynn, and there are now only 52. Their average age is well over 50. I do not believe that there has been an appointment for nearly 25 years.
There is a tremendous amount of envy and resentment against registered dockers among other employees within the port community. Of course there is friendship, but their privileges are resented. When he came to my constituency, the Minister heard that management, middle management and many employees in the docks felt that the scheme had to go, and that, if King's Lynn is to compete against non-scheme ports in East Anglia and against Sutton Bridge, Fosdyke and a host of other non-scheme ports, it must have greater flexibility, move with the times, develop its hinterland, and go forwards rather than backwards.
Every time I have been to the docks, I have had it in the neck time and again about when the Government will do something about the scheme. In spite of the scheme and the fact that King's Lynn has not been able to retain its competitive edge in so many ways, it has continued to increase cargoes and tonnages. It has gone from strength to strength. I wonder what the future will hold for King's Lynn when the Bill is on the statute book.
During the past six months, there have been several beneficial announcements by the Government. The first

was the electrification of the railway line from Cambridge to King's Lynn, with work commencing in August—a major investment in railways.

Mr. Bermingham: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks about King's Lynn dockers, will he assure me on one small point? Many dockers are aged 50-plus. Can he guarantee that they will receive other work in the port facilities at King's Lynn? Does he think that £35,000 maximum compensation for somebody aged 55 who may never work again is fair or adequate?

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The chances of any dockers in King's Lynn losing their jobs are slim. As the hon. Member for Hillhead pointed out, only two people in King's Lynn docks earn more than registered dockers. The average wages of those dockers are only a little less than what hon. Members earn. That is all very well, but the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) must understand ther resentment and envy that builds up. He must understand also that many dockers have savings. A docker came to me the other day and asked for assistance in a property development. He was developing three flats in King's Lynn. I wished him well. I noted that he had done well and saved money. Good luck to him. He also said that, in his heart of hearts, he knew that the scheme could not continue.
As I was saying, one of the beneficial points for King's Lynn was the Secretary of State for Transport's recent announcement of the electrificiation of the railway from Cambridge to King's Lynn. Only 10 days ago, there was an announcement of a massive boost to communications and building in East Anglia. For the first time, the Department of Transport has realised the need for two strategic dual carriageway links into Norfolk—the A47 and the A11. There will also be considerable dualling of the A17 and A10. If, at last, Norfolk is to be recognised as an expanding area that will retain its competitive edge and be able to compete after 1992, it must have good communications. It is a welcome feature that the docks and port in my constituency will benefit greatly from these improvements in communications.
The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is also welcome because, inter alia, it allows for £4 million to be spent on a new riverside berth in King's Lynn. One of the problems at King's Lynn at present is that it is an old dock and the main facilities are contained by sluice gates. It is restricted in the size and length of vessel that it can take. The new riverside berth will allow it to take much longer and bigger vessels, which obviously will allow it to compete more successfully. However, last night a number of Opposition Members—those on the payroll vote and in the pay of the National Union of Mineworkers—very sadly decided to do all they possibly could to sabotage that Bill, which will create a large number of jobs in Immingham, Port Talbot and King's Lynn.
Where are those same hon. Members tonight? We did not hear much last night about their consideration for or care about dockers and their jobs. All we heard was how they wanted to destroy a £40 million investment by Associated British Ports. Incidentally, ABP had to spend getting on for £500,000 in legal fees to surmount the archaic private Bill procedures in the House, and then, last night, 50-odd Opposition Members went out of their way to destroy that Bill. It was a shameful evening. It is


especially shameful because those same Opposition Members are not here tonight when we are discussing a Bill and the tabled amendments, which perhaps would have assisted dockers and given them more money. Those Opposition Members are nowhere to be seen. That shows the sheer hyprocrisy of some Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Hillhead talked about cave dwellers. Those Opposition Members who came to the House to try to destroy a Bill, which means investment and more opportunities for dockers, and especially dockers in my constituency, are the real cave dwellers.
I strongly believe that there are fortunes facing my constituency, because of the four key pillars that I have mentioned: railway electrification; improvements in roads, which give a massive boost to road communications, with millions of pounds being spent on roads to Norfolk; the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which means a massive new investment in King's Lynn; and, most crucially, this Bill, which will allow King's Lynn docks to move forward and to compete with the non-scheme ports. That is what people to whom I have been speaking have been asking for time and time again.
When Opposition Members talk in terms of bringing back some form of structure that will recreate a dock labour mark 2 scheme, all I can say is that, if they come to my constituency during the next election and peddle such views, they will he treated with complete contempt by all the people who will benefit from the Bill—those who will get jobs and increased prospects. If they come to my constituency to peddle such views, it will be a millstone around their necks that they will regret. That is why I support the Third Reading.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Earlier this evening the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was telling us about the development at Tilbury. He told us that we should be concerned about the facts to do with Tilbury. He went on to tell us that, since the announcement of the Bill, a particular company had expressed an interest in investing.

Mr. Tony Banks: Arthur Daley Ltd.

Ms. Primarolo: Yes, Arthur Daley Ltd.
I have copies of the "Tilbury News", which is the port of Tilbury's official newsletter. They contain reports about Tilbury before the proposals for this legislation. Along with the employers, the Government have perpetuated many myths and misrepresentations about what was happening in our ports prior to the White Paper and this Bill. I want to add a few more facts about Tilbury to those which the hon. Member for Thurrock chose to give us.
The first Tilbury Port newsletter states that Tilbury's forest products facilities are being extended by an investment of £2·5 million for an expansion scheme which will bring the total investment in that port this year to £8 million. However, we have been told that scheme ports are starved of investment.
The newsletter refers to the growth in grain importation and refers to Tilbury's grain terminal. It states that Tilbury has improved its ranking in the 1987–88 marketing year for wheat exports from sixth to third position with an increased market share from 6·5 per cent. to 10·4 per cent. It managed that despite the decrease in tonnage due to the poor United Kingdom harvest. Immingham is also a

market leader, with 24 per cent., followed closely by Southampton at 17·5 per cent. Those two ports have also increased their market share.
All three ports all are scheme ports. They are expanding and developing in investment and tonnage and they a re improving their market positions in this country in competing with non-scheme ports. The newsletter also gives details of a new timber terminal at Newport in south Wales which is a multi-million-pound development.
The operations manager at Tilbury has said:
We have some super truck drivers, excellent supervisory staff, plenty of people who work above and beyond the call of duty and, geographically, we couldn't be better placed. The potential is tremendous.
He was talking about dockers in the dock labour scheme. That does not develop the argument or prove the facts referred to by the hon. Member for Thurrock.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Primarolo: No, I will not give way. Many hon. Members want to speak and I am trying to make a reasonably short contribution. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak, he must take his turn.
Turning to the dock labour scheme—

Mr. Bennett: Who wrote the hon. Lady's speech?

Ms. Primarolo: Actually, I am literate and I can write my own speeches.
This Bill has been hallmarked by confrontation and by the Government's undemocratic behaviour. The White Paper was followed immediately by this Bill. It is clear that there has been collusion between the National Association of Port Employers, which has been clear and single-minded in its campaign to abolish the dock labour scheme, and the Government. They have combined to achieve that end. The employers' campaign has been pursued with the clear objective of provoking a national dock strike. It has done that by ending the scheme's severence pay to dock workers, through a series of provocative violations of the scheme and preparing secret plans for breaking a national strike. They are preparing to use the courts to declare the strike illegal. I do not believe that the Government's move to abolish the national dock labour scheme can be separated from the employers' campaign.
The national dock labour scheme has been massively misrepresented in the media, by employers and by the Government. The employers have sought to project themselves as helpless victims with their hands tied behind their backs. The White Paper said that the scheme was an unfair monopoly. In fact, the scheme is run by a board on which employers and unions are equally represented and was established to defend workers against the blue-eyed system of casual labour. That was an honourable objective for such a scheme.
The scheme is accused of making jobs for life and rendering the employers weak and powerless. It is truly incredible that the Government expect us to believe that the port employers are meek, shaking in their shoes, powerless and unable to run their business. Consideration of reports on the development and expansion of our ports shows that not to be the case.
Dockers can be sacked for misconduct and not doing their jobs properly. In 15 years, the national work force within the scheme has reduced by 47,000. Dockers have a guaranteed minimum daily wage. What is wrong with that? Doctors do not stop being paid if they have no


patients to see one day. Jounalists do not stop getting paid if their story is not published one day. Hon. Members do not stop getting paid if they are not literally resident in this Chamber for the entire period of the debates.

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Ms. Primarolo: No, as I have already explained, I shall not give way.
Most employees know that if they turn up for work they will get paid. Many hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, are retained as parliamentary advisers for perhaps giving advice, and it ill behoves people to declare that others are not entitled to receive a daily minimum wage.
Much has been made of the standby agreements. Employers preferred that arrangement to providing proper training and job security for dockers. Now they use the very mechanism which they put into place to blame the unions for what they call the costly, restrictive practices.
Employers say that the scheme has driven port investment elsewhere. In fact, major investments have been announced for scheme ports such as Southampton, Bristol and London.
Bristol is a scheme port. I can give details of the investment agreed while the dock labour scheme was still unthreatened because it was not listed in the Queen's Speech. There has been a £25 million commitment for investment—not a promise or indication of interest, but a legal commitment—by Redland Plaster Board. There has been a £6 million investment by Carrefour Cement and a £5 million investment committed by a scrap metal dealer. The city council is committed to a £47 million programme of investment. Like many other scheme ports, Bristol is hardly starved of investment.
The growth of non-scheme ports on the east coast reflects, among other things, the shift in trade to Europe. The need to become competitive and ready for the single market agreement in 1992 is another reason given for abolishing the scheme. However, as has already been stated, many European ports have job security arrangements which are similar to the dock labour scheme. In addition, they have the advantage of being regarded as part of the basic national infrastructure and are receiving heavy Government subsidies. According to the House of Commons reference sheet, the European ports receive approximately £200 million a year in subsidy. That is hardly a small figure.
Employers are promising not to reintroduce casual labour, but in an industry in which traffic constantly fluctuates their clear objective is to reduce the labour force to a core and employ the remainder on a casual basis. That is the reason for all the fears and representations detailed by other speakers.
In an industry in which all the economic pressures are towards casualisation, the dock labour scheme is, quite properly, a guarantee of job security. It is portrayed as an anachronism from the 1940s, but it is a necessary defence for dock workers. Dock workers are highly skilled. Part of their job involves taking care not to get in the way of cargo as it is being moved around. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but—like others who have spoken—I would

not like to work on a dock. Skilled workers are needed to work with massive machinery and cope with moving large quantities of cargo if fatalities are to be prevented.

Mr. William Cash: Artful dodgers.

Ms. Primarolo: It is not a question of artful dodgers; I am talking about serious employment practices.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He is outside the Bar of the House.

Ms. Primarolo: We want people to work in safe environments. Why has this legislation suddenly been rushed through without consultation, making sweeping changes and challenging people's livelihoods and their very lives? I believe that it is a cynical attempt to divert public opinion from the Government's problems—the National Health Service review, the poll tax, the balance of payments crisis, ever-rising interest rates and the complex problems developing in the housing market. If the scheme needs amending, why has that not been negotiated between the employers and the unions? Why is it necessary to use such a sledgehammer to crack such a small nut?
The dock labour scheme is about employment rights, not about providing anachronistic protection for employers. It ill behoves any hon. Member to pass judgment and make hasty statements about circumstances of which they have no experience and no real knowledge. I ask them to look at what is going on in the scheme ports—to move away from the business interests that they seek to represent in the House, and to make a clear decision in favour of the dock industry's workers and its future.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The special pleading by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was not very convincing. I have two interests in the debate. In the 1979 general election, I was the Conservative candidate for the Thurrock constituency, which I nursed for some three years, and during that time I got to know Tilbury docks and the Port of London Authority quite well; I am delighted that that constituency is now represented by my hon. Friend the present Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
I must tell the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that his sense of trends is somewhat awry. In 1974 the Labour party had a 19,000 majority in Thurrock; by 1979 it had fallen to 6,000, and the 1983 Labour majority of 1,000 was turned into a Conservative majority of 1,000 in the last general election. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's view, the trends suggest not only that my hon. Friend will not be defeated, but that he will increase his majority substantially.
The other reason for my interest in the debate is that I represent part of the heartland of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and I both have a considerable interest in ensuring that companies in our constituencies can export their goods and get them to market without added costs being imposed as a result of restrictive practices such as the dock labour scheme. So while there are not many dockers in north Oxfordshire, many of the people in that area depend on the competitive viability of docks and dock schemes for their own economic success.
I listened with interest to the speeches of Opposition Members, who were all heavy on rhetoric, but few of them


sought to defend the scheme. That is hardly surprising, because it is indefensible. It is riddled with anomalies and has no social justification in modern industrial relations. It has also destroyed jobs.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who was so juvenile and derisory about the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and who is no longer in the Chamber, could have taken the opportunity presented by the debate to explain why the fish handling company in Aberdeen recently lost 100 jobs because it was no longer able to function as a result of the restrictions and restraints that the scheme imposed on it. It is scandalous and tragic that what was otherwise a viable company was forced into receivership by the straitjacket of the dock labour scheme.
The scheme increases costs, hinders our country's competitive position, and distorts trading relations. It has not created more trade or additional jobs but has proved to be a monstrous system of restrictive practices that produced no benefits, no improvements in industrial relations and no enhancement of job security. The scheme led to substantial industrial unrest, with hundreds of days lost in strikes over its period of operation. The scheme fails by any criteria. I defy any Opposition Member to prove that it has encouraged employment. All the evidence is that it destroyed jobs. It has not increased the prosperity of scheme ports, and I defy any Opposition Member to pretend that it has.

Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman makes rash statements that are not borne out by the facts. Although Conservative Members jibe at the port of Liverpool, it operates the best and most successful freeport in the country. It also provides for trading by small businesses and has brought about the transformation of the docks by attracting building investment. It is no use the hon. Gentleman arguing that the scheme is a disincentive. If he will visit that port, he will convince himself otherwise.

Mr. Baldry: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not present at last night's debate on inner cities so that he could have given that glowing testimonial to the freeport status in Liverpool. However, that success has nothing to do with the dock labour scheme but owes much to the Government's initiatives in promoting inner cities.When we next discuss inner cities I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that opportunity to congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department of Trade and Industry on their initiatives in promoting industry in Liverpool.
Contrary to the suggestion matte by the hon. Member for Bristol, South all attempts to bring about changes to the dock labour scheme, or even to negotiate changes, have been frustrated by the Transport and General Workers Union and thwarted by individual dock labour boards, on which the trade unions effectively have a a veto.
The scheme has led to some of the worst restrictive practices in British industry. There has been ghosting, bobbing and massive overmanning. I hope that every Conservative candidate in the European Parliamentary elections will read the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The hon. Gentleman presented the scheme as an example of industrial democracy and worker participation. If industrial democracy and worker participation, a la Vredeling, the fourth directive and other measures of which we hear from

time to time from the European Commission, are now to be synonymous with the scheme, it is little wonder that there are many who are concerned to ensure that the social charter is kept in perspective and under control.
The scheme and the attendant restrictive practices have led to substantially increased costs, which amount to about 20 per cent. They have led to a loss of business from scheme ports to non-scheme ports and from British ports to ports elsewhere in Europe.
It is not surprising that the Bill is passing through the House. It is surprising only that it has taken so long for a Bill of this sort to appear before the House. When I was the parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, way back in 1979, I saw the constant haemorrhaging of work from the port of London to ports on the mainland of Europe.
The loss of business from the scheme ports is clearly evidenced by the rise of the non-scheme ports such as Felixstowe. I hope that every member of the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions in ports such as Felixstowe will have his attention drawn to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Each Member must draw his own inference from it. I understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that every worker who is not a docker in a scheme port is a blackleg worker. I hope that dockers in non-scheme ports will take that on board. It would seem that the Labour party is interested only in supporting an outdated scheme, whatever the cost.
The Labour party's only defence is that in taking that stance it is the only bulwark and defence against casualisation. It may not have noticed that the world has moved on considerably since the mid and late 1940s. Employers need a steady labour force. Has any Opposition Member suggested tonight that in non-scheme ports there is casualisation and that dockers are treated badly, or not well, by their employers? Of course not. Dock work is skilled work and employers need a skilled and steady labour force. They will wish to maintain that labour Force and continue to train it after the end of the scheme. That is the attitude of employers in the present non-scheme ports.
The United Kingdom, along with every country in Europe, faces the challenge of 1992 and the single market. Over the past couple of weeks we have seen something of the supposedly new face of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) was rather more realistic about that when he seemed to suggest that that had rather more to do with packaging than with substance. The suggestion is that the Labour party now wishes Britain to take advantage of the opportunities that the single market of 1992 might present. How does it expect Britain to do so—our companies to prosper and our businesses to trade at a competitive advantage—if we continue to shackle ourselves by restrictive, outdated, anomalous and historic relics of a byegone age, such as the dock labour scheme? It will be an indictment of the Labour party that it has sought so resolutely to defend the indefensible.
The sooner the dock labour scheme is scrapped and all our ports are able to compete freely and properly, unshackled by the dock labour scheme, the better it will be for the heartland of England and for companies and firms in constituencies such as mine. We shall be able to maximise our competitive advantages and go forward. I hope that the Bill will become law as soon as possible.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for the well-known port of Banbury who has just spoken made a number of very inaccurate statements about the profitability of scheme ports. Like many other Conservative Members who have made similar statements—their only concern is to get rid of the dock labour scheme; they know very little about it, but it smacks of regulation and of anything else that prevents employers from doing what they will with their work force—he got his facts very badly wrong.
I remind the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that the largest employer in the scheme ports is Associated British Ports. It owns Ayr, Barrow, Barry, Cardiff, Fleetwood, Garston, Goole, Grimsby, Hull, Immingham, King's Lynn, Lowestoft, Newport, Plymouth, Port Talbot, Silloth, Southampton, Swansea, Troon and the non-scheme ports of Colchester and Teignmouth. Associated British Ports is a growing and profitable company. It was privatised through the sale of 51 per cent. of its shares in February 1983. It reported profits of no less than £38 million in 1987, with ports contributing £19 million to those profits compared with £26 million in 1986—a 46 per cent. increase. In the first half of 1988, the company's profits rose by a further 59 per cent., to £21 million, the ports contributing £11 million.
The scheme ports have been doing so well that the chairman of Associated British Ports, Sir Keith Stuart, earned £97,000 in 1987, an increase of 23 per cent. on 1986. When there is talk about dockers earning large amounts of money, I should like to know how many dockers got a 23 per cent. increase in 1987 compared with 1986.
If the hon. Gentleman wants more evidence about the efficiency and profitability of the scheme ports, I suggest that he should listen not to me—he rarely does—but to what has been said by Ministers. An excellent reference paper, prepared by the Library, shows that, in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on 10 March 1988, the Under-Secretary of State said:
Despite the constraints, many scheme ports are profitable and, as I have already suggested, the industry has adjusted and responded successfully to enormous technological changes over the years, and that could not have been achieved without effective management."—[Official Report, 10 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 599.]
Where, therefore, is the argument about managers not being able to manage? The facts are all here. We argue from the facts. Conservative Members argue from the depths of their ignorance and prejudice against the scheme. The political decision to abolish the dock labour scheme was sudden and traumatic. It was certainly taken without consultation and it was outside the normal parliamentary procedure.
If the scheme is so bad, why has it survived for 40 years? Conservative Members say that the Opposition are not prepared to defend it. We have defended it all the way through. We defended it in Committee where we made quite plain the benefits that it brought to the industry, employers and dockers in terms of standards of welfare, training and pay and conditions generally. That is why Conservative Members dislike the scheme so much. It does a lot of good for dockers and the industry generally, so they want all forms of regulation to be abolished. That is their political objective. Why are they not honest and straightforward about it? Why do they not say, "That's why we don't like the scheme"? Instead of that, they denigrate it all the time.
Not one word was said in Committee by any Minister about anything in the dock labour scheme being decent, despite the fact that it has survived for 40 years, including 10 years of Conservative Government since 1979. If the scheme was so bad, why did the Government do nothing about it before this? They had plenty of opportunities to do so. They did not say in their election manifestos of 1979, 1983 and 1987 that they intended to do away with the scheme. Of course they did not. Now we have this unseemly rush to get the Bill through and get the scheme abolished. It is deliberate and provocative. That is all I can say about Government action.
I know what has been going on. I keep my eyes and ears open around this place. I have seen the lunchtime crowds standing by the Members' entrance, waiting for taxis. I have heard the exchanges—"Where are you going? I am going to such and such a place." I know that the employers have been laying on some very fancy, expensive lunches. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is not here at the moment, but I said it to him enough times in Committee for him to know what I will say. He has been very much in the van, making sure that people were feted with good food and excellent wine by the employers.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Banks: I will not give way because the Government have guillotined the Bill. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman says could frighten or intimidate me, as he knows. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to assist me, rather like the rope supporting a hanging man. I can do without that assistance.

Mr. Bennett: I have a list.

Mr. Banks: He has a list. No doubt he has a list of all the people who were going off for lunch—

Mr. Bennett: It is a list of Labour Members.

Mr. Banks: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman produced a letter allegedly written by Ron Todd, so I will not trust his list any more than I trusted some of the so-called facts that he put before the Committee.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) should be given an opportunity to defend himself, because he was one of the recipients of these lunches.

Mr. Banks: If that was a point or order, it can be dealt with by my hon. Friend when he speaks. [Interruption.] No. He is thinking deeply and hoping that, through a process of political osmosis, the information will seep through the Bench into his brain. No doubt he will be able to deal with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) when he makes his contribution.
We know that the Government want a strike. We have said so all along. When this came up originally, we shouted out that the Government wanted a strike, that they needed a strike and that they were engineering a strike. We said that we did not want a strike. When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said during his contribution that we do not want a strike, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) shouted, "We do." We challenged him at that very moment but he did not withdraw the comment, and he has not done so since.
There has been a conspiracy between the employers and a conspiracy between the Government and the employers.


Messenger boys have been sent backwards and forwards until the employers were able to put the steel into No. 10 by saying, "Yes, we are all ready to go, right hon. Lady." That is what happened. Conservative Members know that to be fact. They want a strike for a variety of economic and social reasons.
The economy is in tatters and it would be useful to the statistics-gathering of the Government if they could write out the amount of imports that are flooding into the country, causing such an enormous balance of payments deficit on manufactured goods. It would take a while for that statistic to even itself out when the dispute ended. That is why they want a dispute. They want to use it in a Machiavellian way to divert the attention of the population. They desperately need a strike.
If the Government force the dockers into a strike, I can assure the Secretary of State that we will be standing with the dockers because we know that a strike is wanted not by the dockers or by the unions, but only by the Government. If the Government force a strike on the dockers, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
At various times in Committee and during the latter stages of the Bill, Ministers have said that plenty of

assurances have been given by employers that there will be no return to casualisation. Frankly, we do not believe that. I would rather accept a steak and kidney pie from Dr. Crippen than an assurance from the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State believes that he is telling the truth, let him sit down with the union and the employers and give the union those assurances in writing. That is a reasonable suggestion, because, as I have said, the Secretary of State needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the jobs that he promised will be generated when the scheme is abolished and that there will be no casualisation. Those assurances need to be translated into something which we can get hold of and to which we can hold the Secretary of State if they are not realised.
Having watched the way in which the conspiracy has worked and the way in which a cowboy charter for cowboy employers carried by a cowboy Government has rapidly moved towards the statute book, if there is a strike, I know that all my colleagues will stand proudly, shoulder to shoulder with the dockers in a strike which the dockers did not seek and do not want, and which the Government clearly want.

Mr. David Davis: Having listened to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I am reminded of the legend of the day before the battle of Waterloo when the Duke of Wellington had to deal with a trooper who had been caught looting, an offence which carried a capital punishment. When he spoke to the trooper, the trooper put up such a good defence that the Duke of Wellington said, "This man knows how to defend the indefensible", and he made him a sergeant.
Today, the Labour party has been trying to defend the indefensible and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West might just aspire to becoming a lance-corporal.

Mr. Tony Banks: I should be so lucky, dearie.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman should be so lucky.
The issues raised on Second Reading, in Committee and today, on Report, are singular in the extent to which they have not been addressed by the Labour party; we talk about disgraceful practices in the docks and we receive no response. We talk about bobbing and welting and all we get is bobbing and weaving from the Opposition; we talk about ghosting and we get gobbledegook; we talk about discipline and we get disingenuousness. The Opposition have not addressed the issues that we raised. They have put themselves in such a difficult position that they have contradicted themselves on the same day. Today they talked themselves into a corner on training. They talked about the dock labour scheme as a bastion of good training, yet not so long ago the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was saying that lack of training had caused ghosting. There have been similar inconsistencies throughout their arguments.
It is not quite true that the Opposition entirely ignored the argument. To some extent they tried to imply that bad practices in the docks were rare, yet they never seriously addressed that argument because in one afternoon I was able to find 27 examples of bad practice in seven ports. They have not addressed the impact of that bad practice on costs, reliability and the standard of service in the ports, and as a result they have never properly addressed the impact of those bad practices on jobs in the ports and in the hinterland around the ports.
I am not surprised that the Opposition do not accept the findings of an independent consultancy report that revealed that the abolition of the scheme would create 50,000 jobs. I understand that they would view that with some scepticism. I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the matter on Second Reading. I, too viewed the report with some scepticism, and on closer examination of it discovered that the effects of 1992 had been left out completely, so it would be more accurate to forecast that not 50,000 but 100,000 jobs would be created by the abolition of the scheme.
Nor would I expect Opposition Members to listen to me. But I would expect the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to read Tribune, which wrote:
It is common knowledge in the shipping industry and among many registered dock workers that the dock work scheme, as applied in many excellent ports, was hastening their decline to the benefit of non-scheme ports. This has not helped the registered dock workers. For example, Transport and General Workers' Union members in non-scheme ports around Humberside are able year after year to earn much

bigger wage packets than their local comrades in the scheme. Growing tonnages and growing incomes go to the smaller non-scheme ports.
It went on to refer to the lack of innovation in the Labour party on this issue. But perhaps Labour Members do not believe Tribune. Let them look with their own eyes at the evidence of what has happened to Aberdeen or Grimsby fishing ports. I note that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is not here today, and I am not surprised.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: He has bobbed off.

Mr. Davis: Bobbed off, exactly.
We have argued about geography and have been told that all the problems are due to changing patterns of trade, although Labour Members ignore the fact that Ipswich and Felixstowe are next door to one another and that the non-scheme tiny wharves on the tributaries of the Humber, in some of the most difficult places with all the disadvantages of geography, are now taking on more business than is the perfectly placed scheme port of Hull, representing a growth for those ports of from 15 to 21 per cent. of Humber traffic in five years.
Nor do we expect Labour Members to look at ports that have lost business, not just to non-scheme ports—because it could be argued that that was due to a redistribution in British employment—but to ports abroad. Ipswich, Grangemouth, Hull and others have lost business abroad, a subject to which I shall return.
Labour Members talk about themselves as coming from the party of the poor and the underprivileged. We do not expect them to worry about the fact that 100,000 jobs—not 9,000 privileges—hang on this decision. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said—and I agree with him—this scheme has been around for 40 years. When it was created, there was a good reason for it. It was designed to deal with the social injustices and economic inefficiencies of the casual system.
I accept all of that, and in Committee I was impressed, if not by the argument then by the passion and commitment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has a family tradition of knowing quite bitterly about these matters for many years. The scheme was created out of the fear of casualism, and that fear has been carried down through families. But it was not created with the intention of developing it into what it is today. It is interesting to look back to the speeches that were made at the time, for example, by Ernest Bevin; and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is in his place, will no doubt recall them.
I have a soft spot for Ernest Bevin, in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who is not in his place, about public schoolboys, because my school is named the Ernest Bevin comprehensive.

Mr. Tony Banks: A very good school.

Mr. Davis: It is indeed, as I hope I am demonstrating.
Ernest Bevin made some impassioned pleas, in the House and before royal commissions, about how the docks should be organised. He said much with which I would agree, especially when he said, in effect, replying to questions about what might happen, "I no more support the idea of people being paid for doing nothing if they are


employees than I do if they are employers and capitalists." He would today look with concern at what we have created in the dock labour scheme.
The fear of casualism should disappear for two reasons. First, it should go because—the arguments have been deployed—of the capital intensity of the modern port and the type of work undertaken by the modern dock worker. The hon. Member for Garston made that point earlier today, and I thank him for doing so.
There is another reason. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West conjured up images, out of a book, of the old days of the casual system. We have talked about the acceptability or otherwise of 6 per cent. casualism, but the people in that 6 per cent. are not suffering the casualism that people think about when they talk about the history of the scheme. It is different from what people fear.
As hon. Members know, I have been antagonistic towards the scheme, but I accept that originally it was well intentioned. Therefore, how has it done so much damage? The answer is long and complex, but the key point is that it broke the link between the interests of the individual worker and the prosperity of the company for which he worked. It rendered that link unviable—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Inoperative.

Mr. Davis: That is a much better word. It sounds like something said by President Reagan or even President Nixon.

Mr. Bennett: President Bennett.

Mr. Davis: Yes.
There is another aspect which Opposition Members talked about at some length and with a great deal of passion. In some ways, their argument was plausible. It is worth addressing the arguments about joint consultation because it sounds a good idea. I proposed to a Conservative party conference in 1973 that we should pass laws to enable worker participation, and I am still here.

Mr. Bennett: Just.

Mr. Davis: Yes, but perhaps that is a measure of something.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is not a job for life.

Mr. Davis: That is certainly true.
It is worth examining how joint consultation has gone wrong in the docks. We have heard many arguments about an inordinately high proportion of people who have been dismissed for disciplinary reasons being subsequently reinstated by the local or national dock labour board. There was an argument that perhaps they were all innocent, but we dealt with that by pointing out that some of them had served time in prison for criminal offences which related directly to their work.
We must ask how that comes about in a reasonable system. The problem is kicked up to the National Dock Labour Board which consists essentially of half union and half management representation. That means that the union has the ability to block a decision but not to change it. What happens then? Anybody who has been dismissed for a disciplinary offence is put on the temporarily unattached register and will receive fall-back pay of up to £200 a week. He will stay on the TUR until a decision is reached or until somebody has to pay him £25,000 to

leave. That is what is meant by a job for life in this context. That is not how I think joint consultation should work, but that is what happens in the dock labour scheme.
Another example is that of clock work definition. There have been many arguments about that issue as new business comes into the ports. I can cite examples in Ipswich, Grangemouth, Hull and so on. In the port of Ipswich there was some sea-dredged gravel to be handled. All that had to be done in the docks was for a button to be pressed on the bridge which led to automatic unloading. That was it. Yet the dockers of Ipswich insisted that that was their work. The matter went up to the National Dock Labour Board and stayed there. It was never solved. The result was that the person who was going to bring that work to Ipswich lost patience and went elsewhere. The same happened at Grangemouth and a number of other ports. That is how a perfectly plausible, perhaps Christian-sounding idea became a destroyer of jobs and a destroyer of discipline.
We cannot afford such a scheme in our ports today. We are an island, so our entire industry depends on our ports. It is right for my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to speak in this debate because he has as much interest as we have in the matter. The issues are our ability to compete and jobs. Much has been made in this debate, and previously, about the fact that dock labour schemes exist in other countries. But international competitiveness has got to them too. Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain are all removing their dock labour schemes, and France is considering doing so at the moment and studying our experience. Those countries know that these schemes destroy jobs.
The Labour party's attitude—and I admit that there are many hon. Members who are impassioned and convinced of their case—has, in general, been irresponsible and dangerous. The Labour party has learnt nothing in the past 10 years. It is ever generous with other people's money, ever defensive of the vocal vested interest over the public interest and always supports the plausible over the practical. Labour's policy review this week demonstrates that its new maxim is that politics is the art of the plausible. I am afraid that Labour Members are not plausible enough tonight.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Several hon. Members have already asked questions about the status of the Bill, which the Government should answer in this debate. I believe that the Bill is necessary and that to phase the scheme out and to create a competitive system, in which all ports can operate on an equal footing, is desirable. However, I am puzzled about the way in which the change has happened.
The Government have, after all, been in office for 10 years. There have been suggestions tonight that there has been a sustained conspiracy between the Government and the port employers and that the abolition of the scheme was planned in advance. The way in which it happened does not square with that. John Turner, for example, the general manager of the Aberdeen harbour board, has been trying to persuade the Government to abolish the scheme for years and the Government told him to go away. It seems that the Government had no intention of removing the dock labour scheme, as has been claimed by those who are vigorously defending it up to the last minute, who


suggest that the scheme should continue and who claim that it was no great obstacle to progress for the scheme ports.
Now we hear a variety of arguments being trotted out—many of which I agree with—and evidence has been drawn up to suggest why the scheme should be changed. Yet until three months ago the Government were denying that evidence and saying that it was unnecessary, untrue and irrelevant. They told harbour board managers to go away and cope with the situation as it was because the Government were not going to change it. What happened? Suddenly, after 10 years, the Secretary of State for Employment came to the House, published a White Paper that day and a Bill the following day and forced the Bill through rapidly, with a guillotine. He is now anxious to get it on to the statute book.
Unlike Labour Members, I will not speculate about the reason for that change. I want to hear from the Government the explanation about what happened and what were the factors involved because the British public are also entitled to know why there was such a dramatic change.
The timing was certainly interesting. One argument that I have heard was that until that point the Government had felt that the scheme could wither on the vine because the number of workers had reduced to fewer than 10,000 and many arrangements being made in individual ports that were moderating and modifying the effects of the scheme, and allowing new investment to go ahead and new agreements to be reached with employees who were outside the scheme, even in scheme ports, thus effectively enabling progress to be made. However, if that was the case, one might assume that, having got that far, the Government might allow the withering on the vine to continue to its logical conclusion.
I recall that the week of the announcement was the week in which the problems at Aberdeen came to a head and reached the national headlines. The Secretary of State knows that I wrote to him saying that the situation had reached such a pass that it was clear that if something did not happen quickly Aberdeen could lose for good the fish market that had operated in the city for 800 years. That was not an empty threat; it was clearly serious with devastating potential consequences for the whole economy of the city of Aberdeen.
I wrote to the Secretary of State on the Monday. On Wednesday his Parliamentary Private Secretary asked me for a copy of the letter and the press release that had gone with it, and on Thursday the statement was made. I noticed that the Secretary of State was ready with a quotation from me to try to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who basically welcomed the statement.
What I am saying is that things were happening, none of which by themselves could explain why the Government changed their mind and moved so quickly, although it is possible that the fact that those things accumulated was the determining factor.
The problem is that the differential between scheme and non-scheme ports has definitely—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We can do without sub-committees being conducted while the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

Mr. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It could easily be observed that investment and business was being diverted to scheme ports. Just to make it absolutely clear that I am not speaking for the general manager of the Aberden harbour board, I should say that on a previous occasion he tried to ensure that the development of Peterhead harbour was blocked. That was something that I opposed and resisted because I believed that Aberdeen harbour should not be allowed to prevent the development of its neighbour, which could benefit the whole of the regional economy. Indeed, I supported the Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Developments) Order Confirmation Bill 1986.
If Aberdeen fish market had closed, that would have caused considerable problems for the entire north-east fishing economy because Peterhead was congested and would not have been able to accommodate the whole of the Aberdeen fleet.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to give the impression that the problems in Aberdeen fish market in recent weeks have anything whatsoever to do with the dock work scheme. The problems arose because the fish landing company went bankrupt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—The good, honest business people in the fishing industry were not prepared to pay any more money. Landings had dropped because of EEC quotas. The hon. Gentleman must not mix up the two issues.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman must know that Aberdeen fish market's problems, which reached a peak in the past few weeks, date back several years. The circumstances that caused the development of Peterhead in the first place were the existence of the scheme and the restrictive practices operating in Aberdeen, which made the inshore fleet simply give up in disgust and move to a port where they were left with freedom to operate in a sensible and commercial way. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that, when the boats arrived on a congested day and there were not enough porters to unload them, after negotiation the crews were allowed to unload the boats, but they had to pay for the dock porters who were unloading other boats and, therefore, were paid twice. In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that boats choose to go to Peterhead where they are allowed to unload without having to pay for the privilege of so doing.
Those anomalies have existed. There is a restrictive practice. In the long run, particularly when relatively small numbers of people are involved in terms of employment, the Labour party should look to the wider interests of people working in a port and see whether defending one group ultimately undermines the job prospects of a larger number.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Bruce: I am being got at from two sides. The debate has been going on for a considerable time. Many hon. Members have had a chance to speak. I am the only representative of my party who is present, and I should be allowed to speak in the debate. It will help the House to develop the argument.
The argument in favour of abolishing the scheme is strong and justified, but it does not explain why things have changed and moved so quickly.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In Weymouth, a registered dock port in my constituency, the fishermen have expanded their operations simply because, by tradition, they have not had to use registered dock workers. When the scheme was introduced for other types of cargoes in Weymouth, there were 130 dockers. When I was elected to represent the constituency, there were 24. We now have nine. Surely that shows that, if only we did not have such restrictions, we would see an expansion of employment such as that which occurred in the fishing industry in Weymouth. Jobs for life are clearly not correct.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman's point reinforces my own. Allowing every port to operate on a free and equal basis is ultimately in the best interests of all those who use and are involved in our ports. I am concerned to try to ensure that that is done quickly and reasonably and to try to probe the reason why the Government did not produce their arguments until very recently, and did so in such a hurry.
It is interesting that, in a sense, being called late in the debate has given me the opportunity to watch the way in which the confrontation has developed. I was possibly privileged not to be on the Committee. To some extent, the hon. Members who were on the Committee have continued the debate. That tends to happen in the final stages of a Bill. It has become apparent that it is a rather old-fashioned confrontational issue in which the two main parties line up in their traditional ways to defend the relevant vested interests. Those who believe that Britain is about to revert to a two-party system in which we operate by confrontation between two power blocs would do well to examine the debate. In the past few years, people have forgotten how destructive that confrontation is.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The two-party debate in Committee occurred because the Liberal spokesman attended only six of our meetings and did not speak. He could have contributed.

Mr. Bruce: I do not speak for my colleague in this context. However, my views on the issue are well known and were published before the Government made a statement of intention to publish the Bill. My colleagues and I have indicated support for the Bill, while supporting some attempts to amend it. That is perfectly reasonable, and I am explaining why it is important that people should carefully examine this litmus paper-type issue.
We do not want two-party confrontation re-established in this country. 1 question the Government rather than speculate. It has been said that there is likely to be a strike, yet both sides are saying that they do not wish a strike to occur and that they will not be responsible for one.
A strike in British ports over this issue would be an extremely unwise and foolish act. It would damage Britain's economic interest and influence abroad. It would be a strike that could not be won and one which—I believe that in its heart of hearts the Labour party knows this—would completely ruin the Labour party's attempts over the past two weeks to suggest that it has effectively been repackaged. It would remind the British people that it is a party that is the creature of the trade union movement and that, ultimately, when the trade unions get into a confrontation, the Labour party will always back them and give way. That is why the Labour party has been out of office for the past 10 years and why it will not find enough support to win office at the next general election.
The Labour party should have the courage to say, "Look, we accept that the scheme was valid and that the reasons for the scheme were justified, but 40 years on, with the trends that have occurred, it is no longer a scheme that can be defended. There are wider interests of working people that should be protected and advanced. We in the Labour party have the courage to say that." I feel that the Labour party, at the very first test, has shown that the repackaged or remodelled Labour party has not the guts to do it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading we are required to address our remarks to the contents of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do that.

Mr. Bruce: The contents of the Bill relate to the clock labour scheme which the Labour party is defending and is threatening to reintroduce. It is pertinent to say that I believe that the scheme should be phased out. The idea that it is likely to be introduced by any future Labour Government is deeply damaging, and the people of this country should take that point on board.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman will surely acknowledge that over the past 10 years the Scottish ports have suffered much more from the effects of the cross-subsidisation scheme, popularly known as the grid system, than they have from the workings of the National Dock Labour Board. Is it not the case that, whereas 10 years ago about 75 per cent. of manufactured goods produced for export by Scottish firms left Scottish scheme ports, the figure today is about 23 per cent.? Let us have a little fair-mindedness from the Liberal spokesman.

Mr. Bruce: That is a perfectly fair point, although it is rather wider than the scheme. I maintain that, first, Scotland in particular has suffered from the consequences of the grid scheme, the decline in manufacturing industry, which has weakened the Scottish economy generally, and the fact that our goods do not ship out direct from Scottish ports.
Secondly, our ports are expanding, but, regrettably, much of the investment is to increase the flow of imports into the country, because the supply side of the economy is not strong enough to ensure that we have enough exports to enable us to pay our way. That, of course, stands as a criticism of the Government's own policy, because we have created not a miracle at the end of 10 years, but a scenario whereby we find that what were once industrial sites are now retail stores, which sell goods that we do not make in this country, but which are sucked in through the port schemes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters related to the Bill.

Mr. Bruce: The point is that these goods are travelling through the scheme ports, and the Government's claim that the scheme will resolve the problems of the British ports and of British trade is not valid. Until we can ensure that the investment in the ports will ensure increased exports as well as increased imports, we shall not succeed in creating a strong and viable economy. I believe, therefore, that we need a much more fundamental strategy to use our ports more effectively to promote the supply


side of our trade. The abolition of the scheme is a small and desirable step, but the Government would be wrong to assume that it will solve our trading problems.

Mr. Loyden: In Committee Conservative Members tried to disguise the real effects of the Bill and they have tried to do that again tonight. In Committee, Conservative Members relied, as they have relied tonight, on producing slogans such as bobbing, welting and ghosting which they probably learned at the seminar organised by the central policies study group and the Tory party central committee. I understand that that seminar was called "I hate the dockers." To establish at least some credibility about the dock scheme, they have been taught not to discuss the scheme, but to rely on the slogans which date back, as far as I am aware, to a period long before the national dock labour scheme came into being.
For some odd reason, the dockers have always been the Government's and the employers' aunt Sallies. That position has never changed. There has been no attempt by the Government to argue the case. In reality, there is no logic for what the Government are doing to the docks industry in the Bill.
The docks industry in the pre-war period was, as everyone has recognised, chaotic. It had inhuman practices which brought dock workers down to the level of animals. I am surprised that we are being led to believe tonight that the ruthless employers who existed before the war, and the hyper-exploitation on the docks, have disappeared and no employer would try to act like that today.
Since the Government came to power in 1979, it has been their central task to weaken the power of the trade union movement and to wipe away—if they possibly could—every agreement and protective right that has been established in this and any other industry. The fact is that the Tory party and the employers do not change. They are committed to and are part of the system which requires them to maximise profit at the expense of the employees. To do that, they must challenge the rights and negotiated agreements which have been established over generations by dock workers and their forefathers.
At one time, 70 per cent. of dock workers in east London were in receipt of poor law relief. Some 40 per cent. of dockers in Liverpool were in the same position. Those two major ports brought massive profit and wealth to the nation. The ports of London and Liverpool were responsible for creating the wealth for the port transport industry at the time. The result of that wealth creation was that dockers and their families lived in poverty.
The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) referred to the role of Ernie Bevin. Ernie Bevin had to go to the Shaw inquiry with examples of the meals that dock workers and their families were living on to prove that dockers and their families were living below the poverty level and that the quantity and quality of their food were endangering their health and that of their wives and children. The court accepted what he had to say. That is the background to the capitalist system and those such as the Tory party who operate it.
A formidable trade union leader in the 1920s said that capitalism was like a tiger. He said that it was ruthless and pitiless to the weak, and where it sees weakness and

disorganisation, it would exploit it to the maximum. The Government have exploited dock workers and their families for generations, year after year. It took the intervention of the state and, more importantly, the second world war, to change the minds, not of the employers, but of the Government, and to ensure that those practices ended as quickly as possible.
The fears at that time were that conditions in the docks were so bad that further trouble was expected during the war. It was to the dock workers' credit that they froze their agreements during that time to play their part during the war and keep the ports running, as indeed they did. Their reward from the Government is the abolition of the scheme that took them out of that position and into one, not of privilege, because the Conservative party is the party of privilege, but one in which they had won the rights for which they fought so hard over the generations. The dock industry became a human industry, and we saw the end of the hyper-exploitation by the employers in the port transport industry.
Conservative Members have clearly exposed their naked opposition to workers' rights. The Prime Minister has shown that in the past couple of weeks. When the statement was made about the possibility of harmonising social policy with Europe, she screamed out in her strident voice that any question of imposing workers' rights on this country would be opposed by her and the Government. That is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but he must address his remarks to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Loyden: The Conservative party has gone to such lengths when introducing this Bill. No argument or logic has come from Conservative Members. They did not even speak very much in Committee. The longest speech made was that of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), which was three and a half minutes. They made no attempt to argue the case and there is no doubt in my mind that, whether they liked it or not, they were acting on the say-so of the employer.
The reason why Ministers were not prepared to move away from their briefs in Committee was that they did not want to allow their minds to enter into the arguments being advanced by the Opposition. That showed that they had no real understanding of the industry and were acting on behalf of the employers. Knowing what employers are like, it was natural that they would not want the scheme in the first place. It was foisted on them by legislation and they have opposed it and tried to get rid of it ever since. It took this Government, with the employers' collaboration, to abolish the scheme.
The Conservatives have not taken one factor into account in the Bill: after abolition of the scheme there will be no scheme ports, but only non-scheme ports. Conservative Members will no longer be able to attempt to divide dock workers between scheme and non-scheme ports as they have done in the past. British ports will be united in their common industry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and others have said, the non-scheme dock workers, who are also members of the Transport and General Workers Union, have, to a large extent, been sheltered by the scheme. Their conditions are there because the scheme is there. Once the scheme goes, you can bet


your bottom dollar that the employers will move in as quickly as possible to begin attacking the conditions in the non-scheme ports.
When there are no longer scheme and non-scheme ports, the dockers will have to unite to fight their employers and the Government if they are to retain their jobs and enjoy decent conditions. In a paradoxical way I almost welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides for that to happen. Conservative Members' speeches tonight and in Committee have been highlighted by their attempts to divide dock workers in scheme and non-scheme ports. The dock workers will readily see that if they are to establish a common framework they will have to rely on the strength of their trade union. That strength has prevailed for the past 47 years: the British trade union movement, which has survived even the attacks of Tory Governments, will be able to re-establish decent conditions in the ports under a future Labour Government who will understand how nonsensical it was for the present Government to introduce such legislation at such a time.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) represents the class-war attitudes of the 1920s and 1930s, and to a large extent sums up the attitudes of the real Labour party activists—hidden as they are by the new Kinnock realism and the soft red Labour rose.
The truth is that Labour still believes in restriction, regulation and control. It does not believe in deregulation or in liberalism. In his speech the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) described employers in the free market as cowboys. Labour Members cannot bear for the hand of the state to be taken away and for people to be able to run their businesses honestly, in accordance with the customer's wishes and needs. I was interested to note that the hon. Gentleman would not give way when he was talking about buses. Since deregulation in 1985 there are 400 more bus operators in the country, and I suspect that the Bill will provide new opportunities for dock workers.
I was also interested by what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who popped in, made his speech in order to get himself reselected—he is in danger of being deselected and replaced by the wife of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—and then popped out again. He said that my great-grandfather would be turning in his grave. Yes, he may be; but Tom Mann, when he led the 1889 dock strike 100 years ago, was fighting in entirely different conditions from those of today's dockers. The trouble with the Labour party is that it does not come up to date; it fights the old battles. We are concerned with ensuring that the battles of 1992 and the single European market are won, and we must do that be getting rid of the scheme that is blighting so many of our inner cities.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I am sorry, I will not give way. I have only nine minutes.
The scheme is full of defects. In Glasgow, seven registered plus two non-registered dock workers are in attendance for the bulk coal vessels, with no function whatever. The same is true in Middlesbrough, Cardiff, Newport and various other ports all over the country.

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: I am sorry; I have only nine minutes.
There are plenty of examples of the abuses—ghosting, bobbing and welting—that have occurred under the dock labour scheme. We must lift the criminal law from employers so that no longer are 10 per cent. of dockers inactive—plus another 10 or 20 per cent. if the ghosters and bobbers are added.
The annual report and accounts of the National Dock Labour Board for 1986 comments:
Definition of dock work issues continued to be a problem and 12 cases were dealt with during 1986. There is growing concern over the increasing number of non-Scheme projects which have been and are being developed, often in close proximity to existing Scheme ports. This has been particularly noticeable on the Ouse and Trent rivers, and in the vicinity of the Wash. In some cases, the National Board took the unusual step of expressing its concern to the local authorities which were involved in the planning applications.
The board is in the business of stopping competition and of restriction. It even attempts to use planning laws to prevent legitimate competition. That is another reason why this rotten, lousy scheme must be abolished.
Opposition Members commented on pay and said how poor are dock workers and that we would not work for the same low salaries. Some dockers receive larger salaries than Members of Parliament. There is no shortage of money in the docks. The average wage under the dock labour scheme is £347·57 per week. In Barry it is £588·37. That is hardly peanuts. At the last Labour party conference, the Leader of the Opposition said:
Ron Todd made the point with deadly accuracy just a couple of months ago when he asked: `What do you say to a docker who earns £400 per week, owns his home, a new car, a microwave and a video, as well as a small place near Marbella? You do not say,' said Ron, let me take you out of your misery, brother'.
That is the reality in respect of dockers' earnings under the scheme. Let us hear no more nonsense about their poverty.
We heard also from those hon. Members sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, who spoke about those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve as consultants—but without declaring that they receive payments from the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman maligns those of my hon. Friends who are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, as I am, and who do not receive any direct pay from their sponsor.

Mr. Bennett: I understand that the Transport and General Workers Union ballot of its members secured 70 per cent. support for strike action, although the union will not publish figures for the individual ports. The ballot paper is headed, "Trade Dispute with your Employer", which is palpably untrue. It is a trade dispute arising from a decision of this House, so it is an attempt to oppose 1 he will of Parliament. The union is so scared that it was not prepared to describe the nature of the trade dispute in the ballot paper for its members to read. That is not surprising, because the TGWU's record is of changing its position every two or three days.
The Bill is necessary because time and again the TGWU was asked to negotiate over the scheme but refused. On 16 April 1986, Mr. Nicholas Finney, director of the National Association of Port Employers, wrote to John Connolly,


national secretary of the union's dock, waterways and fishing group, offering discussions. Mr. Connolly's reply of 21 April states:
In reply to your letter of 16 April 1986, I can advise you that, having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I see no point in having joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal.
The TGWU has consistently taken the attitude that its members will strike if any attempt is made to end the scheme.
During negotiations this year, the union issued a press statement on 18 April stating that
we demand that the National Association of Port Employers should meet us urgently in order to establish national conditions that are no less favourable than the current provisions.
So it appears that it wants part of the scheme to be retained. In discussions between the unions and NAPE the following day, the association made a number of offers, including continuation of the pension fund, holiday entitlement, sick pay, basic working hours, and individual contracts. On that same day the TGWU stated:
We are not seeking to substitute for the statutory scheme another scheme no less favourable.

Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all listening with fascination to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), but when he filibustered on the guillotine motion he read out all the correspondence that he is quoting this evening. Is it in order to read out the same letters a second time on Third Reading?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will realise that there are other hon. Members who have waited a long time to participate in the debate.

Mr. Bennett: I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely say that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is wrong. I did not read out during the debate on the guillotine motion the material that I have quoted this evening. If he reads Hansard, he will recognise that that is so.
On 24 April, the TGWU were demanding of the port employers that they should have a scheme that would amount to a national scheme. How can the port employers, the Government or anyone else believe what the TGWU says when in five days it changes its position three times?
The strike record in the scheme ports has been about five or six times as bad as that of the rest of British industry over the past 20 years. That is another reason why the scheme has outlived its usefulness. It is time to free the docks and the inner-city areas so that they can prepare for 1992. That will ensure that Britain can make the most use of the economic prosperity that the Government are bringing it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The debate has demonstrated the absurdity of the guillotine motion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with consummate ignorance of the problems of the Aberdeen fish market, which are extremely complex. It is ridiculous to suggest that the problems of a small part of a major port

constitute a reason for introducing legislation that will affect thousands throughout the United Kingdom economy.
My constitutents—I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to me because I am speaking of real people—are in limbo, including some who are fish market porters. The employing company—the Aberdeen Fish Landing Company—went out of existence. Those who worked for it found that they had no employer. Some have accepted redundancy pay of £25,000. Others believed—that was until the Minister for Public Transport spoke in Committee—that under the Bill they would receive £37,500. It appears from what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee that that sum will not be paid. I am talking of people whose lives are at stake. Let the House realise that £10,000 is a hell of a lot of money for these people, and that some of them will not work again. The Minister has not had the courtesy to reply to a letter that I wrote some time ago, and he failed to respond to my contribution to the guillotine motion. It seems that the promise given earlier today that I would receive a reply will not be honoured.
When we are dealing with major issues of this sort we should not be proceeding under a guillotine, when the rights of hon. Members to represent their constituents are denied them in a draconian manner. Conservative Members who pretend that they speak for the rights of individuals should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for what has happened.
I am extremely angry about the way in which the Bill has been handled. It was introduced with deceit, duplicity and dishonour. It was not mentioned in the Conservative party manifesto. It did not even warrant a mention in the Queen's Speech. We are not dealing with a minor industry or a minor change. A generation of practice is being changed. We are not dealing merely with the technicalities of ending a scheme, for we must be concerned with the future of the industry. If the National Association of Port Employers happens to be listening, or if it happens to read the report of my speech in Hansard, I repeat what I put to it earlier. If it does not handle properly the changes that are set out in the Bill, it will be landing itself in a great deal of industrial relations trouble for many generations to come.
There are those who believe that it will be possible to abandon the scheme along with national negotiations, training schemes and medical facilities. We do not even know what will happen to pensions. It is thought that this can be done port by port or on the basis of worst practices. Employers have said in Aberdeen and elsewhere, "We shall not return to casualisation. Instead, we shall have a core of permanent employees. As and when we need more men, we shall take them on. When we do not have work for them, we shall fire them." Is that not casualisation? Is that the way to create good industrial relations? The way that the Government are behaving is atrocious.
There was a time when the Department of Employment was a Department of conciliation and good industrial relations practices. It sought to ensure that employers and employees worked together. There was a time when it tried to ensure that industrial relations were good enough to prevent industrial strife, not to provoke it. This Government are intent on provocation. It will do great damage to industry.
We are told that 50,000 jobs will be created—that there will be a gigantic leap forward because the number of jobs


will be doubled to 100,000. The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) said that even more than 100,000 jobs might be created. Whenever the fish marketing scheme has been discussed in Aberdeen we have put it to the employers that if they want to introduce changes they ought at least to offer the prospect of more employment, but they have absolutely refused to consider it. It is nonsense to believe that a scheme to generate 50,000 jobs will be successful when the Bill provides for massive redundancy payments. We do not create jobs by sacking people.
The Government and the port employers will rue the day. I am sad about that and about the damage that it will do to the economy. I am even sadder about the damage that it will do to individuals. The greatest sadness of all is that the Secretary of State for Employment has disgraced the position that he holds. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Mr. Strang: During the seven weeks or so that have elapsed since the Government announced that they intended to abolish the dock labour scheme we have been waiting for an answer to the questions why the Government did not announce in the Queen's Speech their intention to abolish the scheme and why they have suddenly decided to introduce this Bill. No Labour Member relishes the prospect of a national dock strike.
It was misleading of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to suggest that the Transport and General Workers Union intends to vote against the abolition of the scheme. At the meeting with the employers on 18 April the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union made it clear that the union would not seek to oppose the legislation currently going through Parliament. He said:
We will be opposing the Dock Work Bill using the normal Parliamentary channels.
He then went on to ask legitimate questions that we asked in Committee and which have been asked again today about what is to replace the scheme. For example, he asked:
How will you ensure the job security of dock workers?
What arrangements will there he for medical and welfare facilities and training?
Will the provisions of the Aldington-Jones Agreement, which is of course not a statutory provision but a collective agreement between the unions and employers, be affected?
What will be the role of the National Joint Council for the port transport industry?
He received no answer to any of those questions. Neither the dockers nor the TGWU know what is in store for them. That is why we could be on the verge of a damaging trade dispute.
The union wants to negotiate a national collective agreement to replace the dock labour scheme. We reject many of the arguments that have been advanced tonight. We reject the idea that investment has not been taking place in the scheme ports. Example after example has been given of the millions of pounds that are being invested. We reject the idea that there is low productivity in the scheme ports. The evidence has been given to the House.
There has been a dramatic shift in Britain's trade. The enormous increase in the proportion of our trade with mainland Europe has increased the growth of trade in ports on the east coast of the country.

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Strang: No, because I want the Minister to have time to reply.
We have received no answer to these points. It is therefore hard to resist the conclusion that the Government are going into this with open eyes. They are creating the conditions for a national dock strike.
We hope that when the matter is resolved in the courts, as it will be shortly, the Government will intervene and at the last minute will invite the employers and the unions to the Department of Employment, sit down with them and discuss what progress can be made in negotiating arrangements to replace the scheme.
There is no need for a strike. No one suggests that a strike will stop the passage of the legislation. The ball is in the Government's court. They can accept the consequences of their action and see a damaging strike that is not in the interests of the country, the port employers or of the dockers. That will happen if they go hell bent down the road that leads to confrontation. There is no need for that approach, but it has been endemic in everything that the Government have said since they started to enact the measure. We appeal to them even at this stage to think again. They should recognise that there has to be life after the passage of the legislation and that there should be constructive discussions to arrange for the future of the scheme ports.

Mr. Cope: We have had another long debate on the Bill. It is drawing to a close but we have heard little new except the deep knowledge of the damage to their local ports from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) and others.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked a specific question about whether dockers in Aberdeen could get compensation in the particular circumstances of the fish dock in his constituency. Those who are registered dock workers when the scheme ends, and who become redundant, will get the full money to which they are entitled under the scheme—up to £35,000 for 15 years' service. If the employers cannot or do not pay them, the Government will stand behind the scheme to make sure that they are paid.
All the arguments from the Opposition today were familiar to those of us who were on the Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) worked up wonderful indignation about the guillotine, as only he is capable of doing. Every hon. Member who was on the Committee knows that there was an almost audible sigh of relief from all sides when the guillotine came into effect. What is more, we never needed to sit late thereafter.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West said earlier in our debates, and repeated today, that this was essentially a one-clause Bill. That is not true. There are important provisions in the later clauses about what will happen after the scheme. The Bill implements a single clear idea. We believe that there should no longer be a special class of registered dock workers, with unique statutory provisions governing their employment. All workers in the docks, including those who were registered dock workers, should have the same rights and obligations as other employees of their companies and, for that matter, employees in other


industries. We not only think that that is right for the sake of the dock companies and their other non-registered employees but we believe that it is in the interests of scheme ports and the areas around them. There is clear evidence that the scheme's unique statutory restrictions have held hack, and continue to hold back, the performance of scheme ports. There is no doubt that they are losing business and jobs to their competitors outside the scheme. That cannot be explained by the shift in the patterns of British trade.

Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a crucial problem of the dock labour scheme has been the way that it has put up charges to shippers and that the success of the east coast ports has been due to the fact that they charge £2 per tonne for unloading? They are small ports. Large carriers are going into places such as Rotterdam where they pay £2 per tonne for trans-shipment into small ships which bring the products in through small east coast ports, thus avoiding the large ports such as Teesside in my constituency and Liverpool where they would have to pay £6, £8 or even £17 per tonne for unloading.

Mr. Cope: My hon. Friend makes a shrewd point. It certainly cannot be said that the loss of business has anything to do with the shift of trade to the continent. The scheme ports on the south and east coasts managed a 26 per cent. increase in their trade since 1970, no doubt partly as a result of that shift in trade. The non-scheme ports on the south and east coasts increased their trade by 325 per cent. in the same period. It is also noticeable that Hull and Goole lost ground to the wharves on the Humber and the Trent and that the non-scheme ports on the west coast, Heysham and Holyhead, have grown, while Liverpool has continued to decline.
The scheme's restrictions have proved extremely damaging, but they have also become unnecessary to provide reasonable terms and conditions for dock workers in those ports. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, technology, not the scheme, has tranformed the port industry. In the 1940s, before technology was introduced, it was a labour-intensive, low-skilled industry, prone to widespread casual work which was an extremely unpleasant practice. Today it is a highly mechanised industry which is handling more tonnage with one sixth of the labour force.
Today's ports cannot operate without a well-trained permanent work force. Casual work has gone and the scheme is no longer required to prevent it. Those who have raised that spectre, along with other historical matters, do so only to frighten the dockers and other members of the unions. Ports outside the scheme demonstrate that the more modern and efficient they are, the more they rely on a modern, well-paid work force. That is a far better guarantee of good terms and conditions than the artificial, counter-productive controls of the scheme.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham, West drew our attention to research by the centre for labour economics at the London School of Economics. I took the trouble to make inquiries and look it up. It showed why the scheme ports have lost ground. It revealed that the scheme's monopoly allowed the unions to resist the introduction of containerisation during the 1960s; to

secure pay increase of about 35 per cent. in 1967 in exchange for the acceptance of new technology; and to refuse to accept lower manning levels, which were a natural consequence of new technology, until an alternative arrangement, heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, was introduced in 1972. That is why the scheme ports have lost half their container trade in little more than 20 years. That trade could have offset at least some of the job losses which the report rightly attributes to the technological revolution which the industry has undergone.
The scheme has defended indefensible working practices. It has produced the most extraordinary recruitment and disciplinary practices. It has led to inbuilt labour surpluses touching 18 per cent. in the past 10 years, which have damaged job creation and competitiveness immensely. All that has been underpinned by a statutory system of joint control which has functioned not to promote change in response to containerisation, for example, but first to block it and then to set an unacceptable price for it. The only way out is to abolish the scheme and to give the entire ports industry the same framework of employment law and free collective bargaining as everyone else.
The Opposition have not defended the details of the scheme. On the contrary, at various times they have offered to alter them, unlike the TGWU, which always refused to discuss change until the moment we said we would abolish the scheme.
But the Opposition have now said—or at least the hon. Member for Oldham, West has said—that they want to keep the scheme in place while the new controls are developed, with all the main restrictions of the present scheme, not only in the existing scheme ports but extended to all the other ports which have meanwhile flourished outside its grip. In particular, Labour Members also want to extend the statutory joint control which unions have used to block change in scheme ports, and they have even seen it as a model for other industries. That would be a recipe for disaster in British industry, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) correctly pointed out how old fashioned Labour party policy is—

It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [8 May] , to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 163.

Division No. 214]
[12 midnight


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Allason, Rupert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Body, Sir Richard


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkinson, David
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brazier, Julian


Bellingham, Henry
Bright, Graham


Bendall, Vivian
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Benyon, W.
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick






Budgen, Nicholas
Hind, Kenneth


Burns, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Howard, Michael


Butcher, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butler, Chris
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butterfill, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Churchill, Mr
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lang, Ian


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Ivan


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maclean, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maude, Hon Francis


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Day, Stephen
Miller, Sir Hal


Devlin, Tim
Mills, Iain


Dicks, Terry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moate, Roger


Dover, Den
Monro, Sir Hector


Durant, Tony
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Dykes, Hugh
Morrison, Sir Charles


Emery, Sir Peter
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Moss, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Neale, Gerrard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Neubert, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Norris, Steve


Fox, Sir Marcus
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Franks, Cecil
Oppenheim, Phillip


Freeman, Roger
Page, Richard


French, Douglas
Paice, James


Fry, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Gale, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gardiner, George
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Powell, William (Corby)


Goodlad, Alastair
Price, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Redwood, John


Gow, Ian
Renton, Tim


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rhodes James, Robert


Gregory, Conal
Riddick, Graham


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Grist, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hague, William
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rost, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hannam, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Harris, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayes, Jerry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hayward, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Heddle, John
Speller, Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Squire, Robin


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stevens, Lewis
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Warren, Kenneth


Summerson, Hugo
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Tom Sackville.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Fisher, Mark


Anderson, Donald
Flynn, Paul


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Foster, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Galloway, George


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Battle, John
George, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Gould, Bryan


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Buckley, George J.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Canavan, Dennis
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clay, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clelland, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cohen, Harry
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leighton, Ron


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Cummings, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Doran, Frank
McKeivey, William


Douglas, Dick
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fatchett, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michael, Alun






Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Ruddock, Joan


Morgan, Rhodri
Sedgemore, Brian


Morley, Elliott
Sheerman, Barry


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Parry, Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robertson, George



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Allen McKay.


Rowlands, Ted

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Vehicle Emissions

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you and to my hon. Friend the Minister to call off this debate. It is an insult to Parliament, as you know, to have a discussion on what line the Government should take when they announced this morning what line they had decided to take. I appreciate the constraints of time, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter earlier, and I advised him that it might be a suitable point to raise in the course of the debate. Doubtless the Minister is aware that the hon. Gentleman raised this point of order. I am powerless to change what is set down on the Order Paper.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6529/89 on vehicle emissions; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure an agreement on emissions from small cars, taking into account environmental effects, fuel economy and the needs of industry.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Bottomley: Withdraw what?
The Government believe that the right way forward is to support the Commission's most recent revised proposal for tighter standards for small cars in 1993. Much has happened since last November and it will be helpful to the House if I recount the developments.
This subject was considered by the House in November. Shortly afterwards, the Council of Ministers agreed a common position on the terms explained to the House during that debate. Under the co-operation procedure, the November agreement was re-submitted to the European Parliament for Second Reading. The European Parliament has a history of favouring higher standards and it soon became clear that there was a genuine possibility of an absolute majority of Members of the European Parliament supporting the rejection of the common position. That would have compelled the Council to act by unanimity to adopt a directive based on the common position.
In the past, the Commission has robustly defended the Council's position, with the result that Council agreements have been adopted as Community directives. The climate of opinion in the Commission on vehicle emissions has changed significantly since the beginning of this year, perhaps because of concern that the Parliament would vote for the outright rejection of the common position. The Commission attempted to pre-empt a rejecting vote by announcing before the plenary session of the European Parliament took place that it would substantially revise its proposal to be more in line with thinking in the Parliament. This move succeeded in deflecting the vote from a rejection to an amendment of the common position. It preserved the possibility of agreement in Council by qualified majority.
The outcome of all this is the revised proposal before the House today. Its central elements are: an advance from


1993 to 1991 of the original stage II standards of 30 g/test for CO and 8 g/test HC+ NOx effectively supplanting stage I; the introduction of a stage, with tighter limits of 19 g/test CO and 5 g/test HC+ NOx, in 1993; the strengthening of the Commission's commitment to bring forward further proposals on the high-speed cycle; and the transformation of the proposed directive from an optional to a mandatory basis.
These are radical proposed changes. They pave the way for state of the art standards in Europe not only for small cars, which we are debating this evening, but for all sizes of car. There will be costs to the motorist and penalties on fuel economy.
The standards previously supported would have meant the need to fit simple catalysts to virtually all small cars while still allowing the development of fuel efficient technologies such as lean burn to continue.
Tighter standards mean lower emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen—also known as NOx—but the use of three-way catalysts can lead to increases in carbon dioxide emissions, because fuel economy is increased.

Mr. Richard Page: My hon. Friend has said that this is a proposal, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has said that the decision has already been made. Can my hon. Friend square that circle so that I can decide whether to stay for the debate or to go?

Mr. Bottomley: The Council of Ministers will meet on 8 June. The Government have announced that they intend to support the 1993 proposals—

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Without waiting for this debate.

Mr. Bottomley: —and to reject the 1991 interim stage—[Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announces what the Government's intention is and if my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) announces in a written answer this afternoon what the Government's intention is—[Interruption.]—and if I could finish my sentence and if my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) would contain himself for a moment, so that I can try to spell out the position clearly and make it possible for the Government and others to hear the views of other hon. Members—

Mr. Aitken: The Government have already decided.

Mr. Bottomley: What has been announced is the Government's intention; the decision will come from the Council of Ministers. To those who say that there is no point in staying for the debate, I say that that would be a loss to the debate.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I assure the Minister that on this matter I shall be strictly procedural. Do I understand from him that the news release of earlier today tells us that the Secretary of State announced—prior to the debate, perhaps by a few hours—what the Government's attitude will be at the Council of Ministers and that, while the House may accept the measure, it is a fact that the Secretary of State has announced his intention prior to the debate? In my recollection, that is a complete novelty because, although the Government's views are

often expressed in a motion, they do not usually announce their intention until after the debate. Will the Minister confirm what I have said?

Mr. Bottomley: I would not dream of confirming what the hon. Gentleman has said. What the Government have said is what they intend to do and to support. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said last week when the Government made information available to Members as soon as possible, even before making announcements, it seems perfectly reasonable and to make sense to make the information available during the day better to inform those who are interested in the debate.

Mr. John Prescott: That is what the Minister's speech is supposed to be about.

Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will go back to his new year's resolution of three years ago and listen with his ears rather than his mouth, I will continue.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If my hon. Friend and the Government are persuaded by the arguments that are put forward tonight, will my hon. Friend explain the effect that will have?

Mr. Bottomley: The only arguments that are being put forward at the moment are mine. When I have listened to the other arguments—I do not have extra-sensory perception—

Mr. Budgen: What effect will it have?

Mr. Prescott: The Minister should listen to the question and then try to answer it.

Mr. Budgen: What effect will it have?

Mr. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. There are too many speeches going on.

Mr. Bottomley: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South.

Mr. Aitken: By his rather frivolous manner, my hon. Friend is making it clear that he has not understood the seriousness of the point he is making and the seriousness of the insult which, through my hon. Friend's lips, the Government are perpetrating. We are here to debate a serious issue, and we have amendments, views and ideas on it. Yet, before the debate, the Government announced their policy without listening to hon. Members' views. What is the purpose of the debate, and, specifically, will my hon. Friend answer my question? If he is convinced by any of the arguments that are put forward in the debate tonight, will he have any power to change the Government's policy from that which was so prematurely and insultingly announced without consulting the House earlier today?

Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister answer that question?

Mr. Bottomley: I inform my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South is asking me to predict the content of speeches that are likely to be made in support of the amendment. Part of that is the idea that it will be a costly and nonsensical problem for


manufacturers. As speeches in support of the amendment have not yet been made, it is not clear whether it relates to the 1991 interim stage or the 1993 stage. The manufacturers' clear view is that they do not want the interim 1991 stage and are content with the 1993 stage.
It is impossible to answer the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West as I do not know what point he will make. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, if this debate demonstrates that the House wants the 1991 stage—the interim stage—against the interests of the manufacturers and against the natural manufacturing and development cycle of engines, which is what we are discussing, the Government would obviously want to consider such a view. It is highly unlikely that any hon. Member will support the interim 1991 stage. [Interruption.] Obviously I am not suggesting that, because I am the only hon. Member who has made a speech so far.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Minister seems to be saying that the Government will support the 1993 standard and not the 1991 standard. If the Government cannot have their way in the Council and cannot have the 1991 standard removed, will they still support the 1993 standard?

Mr. Bottomley: My information is that there is no qualified majority to support the 1991 interim standard in the Council of Ministers. Obviously, that is looking forward to 8 June. My expectation is that there will be no qualified majority and that one is unlikely to develop. There is the possibility—perhaps the probability—of getting a qualified majority for the 1993 standard. Those hon. Members who were present during Environment questions will have heard the Government's position on the package which would make sense and make 1993 acceptable. There is a balance in deciding what is right for manufacturers. The 1993 standard, without the 1991 standard, is right for them. It is a matter of what is right for the environment, and I shall refer to that in just a moment.

Mr. Roger King: I have been listening to what my hon. Friend the Minister has been saying. He will recall that we debated this subject on Wednesday 2 November last year. The Government's view clearly was that we would not and could not accept the 5g ruling because of a variety of reasons, which the Minister most lucidly put. One need not recount exactly what those reasons are; they can be mentioned later. What has happened in the meantime that has caused the Government to revise their view and now opt for the 5g limit?

Mr. Bottomley: I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was present when I made the first part of my speech. I do not wish to repeat it. Many other hon. Members heard it, and probably also understood it. I will happily share my view with my hon. Friend later in the debate if he wishes.
One outcome can establish a stable agreement that is understandable by motorists and will offer a sensible path for the motor industry. That is the key change since November of last year. I explained some of the participants in the movement of opinion.
The Government have decided to work as hard as possible to see that the limits are introduced to Europe in an orderly manner. We accept the Commission's proposals for the final stage in 1993.
We shall resist the idea of the intermediate 1991 stage. It is industrial nonsense to set limits that will be superseded after only two years. It may be that the Commission has kept the intermediate stage in its proposal to retain a vestigial link with the common position.
Many other member states share this view. It is likely that the Commission will delete the intermediate limits before the June Environment Council. That would be a substantial step towards the adoption of a directive. It would set a marker for the definitive standards which the Commission is to propose later this year relating to the new, combined urban and high speed test cycle. At the same time, new proposals are expected for type approval durability testing, evaporative emission standards and a second stage particulate standard for diesel engined cars. The Government are giving technical assistance in the development of those proposals.
Some ground is lost by putting lean burn on the back burner. Improving fuel efficiency does matter. It would be a step backwards to have a three-way catalyst rather than one just one way with the lean-burn technology. We want to see what can be done to reap the advantages of lean burn or fast burn. We want to see what scope there is for reducing vehicle weights and aerodynamic drag and taking other efficiency measures. Great strides have been made in the past, in spite of increasingly severe emission and safety standards. That momentum must be maintained.
Good progress is being made towards a stable framework that will allow substantial advances in controlling motor vehicle pollution. It will allow industry to seek optimum technical solutions for the new standards, minimising costs to the motorists. The Government will work to see that the atmosphere is improved.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Despite the lateness of the hour, it is a pleasure to address the House on behalf of the Opposition on a subject of such immense importance to human health and the natural environment. The draft directive represents what we believe is best in Europe. It is a recognition by politicians from across the whole continent and the political spectrum that industry must serve the needs of society and not vice versa.
To the Prime Minister, this would normally be a case of "meddling Europe". Indeed, the effects of the directive would be much more dramatic than the cigarette packet labelling about which the right hon. Lady made such a drama last week. Her change of attitude is extraordinary. Less than a month ago, she was lecturing my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) at Prime Minister's Question Time about the merits of lean-burn engines over catalytic converters. Of course, the whole stance of the Government over a period of years has been to block the introduction of US-type emission standards to Europe on the basis of questionable scientific advice and a commitment to one particular technology—the lean-burn engine.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I know that there have been changes in responsibility and, as we said on the hon. Lady's first appearance at the Dispatch Box, we welcome her to the Transport portfolio. However, in the November


debate it was not that we had to have lean burn, but that we had to provide the opportunity for it to be developed. It was not one or the other. The purpose was to move forward to the position of achieving fuel efficiency as well as a better atmosphere.

Ms. Ruddock: The result was just the same—there was a blocking mechanism.
None the less, it would be churlish for us not wholeheartedly to welcome this eleventh hour conversion of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment. We have, however, no doubt that the catalyst was not the science with which she sought to support the Government's case in the past but rather the European elections in which concern for the environment will be playing such a major part. The Government have clearly realised that public opinion has moved strongly against the accelerating degradation of the environment, which has been the hallmark of 10 years of Thatcherism.
The lessons of the vehicle emission story are important ones that directly contradict the Government's approach. By the Clean Air Act 1970, the Americans pledged to reduce motor emissions by 90 per cent. by 1983. The risks from carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide emissions were beginning to be recognised, but at that time no technology existed to do the job promised by the legislature. Yet the lesson from the United States is a striking one: set the standards and the technology will follow.
By 1975 the Americans had two-way catalytic converters, efficient in reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. The benefits, of course, reached beyond the control of carbon monoxide, because catalytic converters require the introduction of unleaded petrol.
Unleaded fuel was introduced in the United States in 1974. Within 10 years all American cars had acquired catalytic converters and were running on unleaded petrol. Significantly, I am told, fuel efficiency was increased by 100 per cent. over the same period. With such evidence before them, it is amazing that the Government felt for so long that they had to back a particular technology and to stand in the way of stricter European controls on a technological promise as yet unrealised.
Surely the Government's role is to regulate, to set higher standards and to put the nation's health first. We did not have to choose between catalytic converters and lean-burn engines. They are not incompatible and the scientific evidence varies. Crucially the lean-burn engine is not in production and the three-way catalytic converter is. Whatever may be the best solutions which lie ahead of us today, the Government should not stand in the way of progress.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We will not.

Ms. Ruddock: We shall see.
I want to consider why we need to deal with the emissions. Current car emissions are restricted under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulations which are extremely permissive standards, allowing 400 per cent. more emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons that are allowed under the United States regulations which have been in place since 1983. On average, a car in the United Kingdom emits a quarter of a tonne of those toxic pollutants while cars in the United States emit only a quarter of that amount.
The problem is growing. Fifty five thousand new cars arrive on Britain's roads each day. The Government's commitment to major new road building will ensure that the problem is continually exacerbated. Sadly the effects of that growth are already demonstrated by the parallel case of vehicle-caused lead pollution.
Last year the level of lead in the air rose in the United Kingdom by 5 per cent. as the result of the growth of traffic volume which exceeded the uptake of lead-free fuel. [HON. MEMBERS: "So What?"] So what? It is going to continue and get worse.
Given the rapid rise in the number of cars, it is crucial that Britain adopts the most stringent standards instead of risking retaining the most permissive.
The emissions with which the directive is concerned are serious hazards to health and to the environment. Road transport is a major source of man-made carbon monoxide emissions. It has an impact on human health, on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. In London the World Health Organisation guidelines on carbon monoxide in respect of human beings are regularly exceeded. Its impact on the environment is via the chemical processes affecting levels of tropospheric oxidants, green house gases and strataspheric ozone.
The other major pollutants with which the directive is concerned are the hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Both types of pollutants again add to the processes which produce the secondary pollutant ozone. The hydrocarbon emissions contain a proportion of highly dangerous polyaromatics which are known to increase the rate of lung cancer. Oxides of nitrogen are implicated in a range of human diseases affecting the respiratory system. In the atmosphere, nitrogen oxides become transformed into gaseous or liquid forms of nitric acid, adding to the acidification of lakes and rivers and the formation of acid rain.
Britain is already infamous as an exporter of acid rain. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, British and Danish forests are the most defoliated in Europe. The United Kingdom acid waters review group estimates that a reversal of the acidification of lakes and streams would require a 90 per cent. reduction in emissions.
These are extremely serious environmental concerns. Thankfully we may be in sight of such reductions. If we are in sight of them, as I sincerely hope that we are, it will be a victory for those of us who have continually pressed for higher standards of environmental protection and particularly for the pressure groups including Greenpeace and the Campaign for Lead-Free Air which have so skilfully assembled the evidence—evidence which, I have no doubt, persuaded Conservative MEPs to drop the British Government line and vote to give us the revised draft directive.
If agreed, the adoption of the United States emission standards will be of enormous benefit to society in terms of the reduction of severe pollutants, by proven technology, of the three-way catalytic converters. They do not, however—and the Minister referred to this—deal specifically with the production of carbon dioxide, of which car emissions are the fastest growing source and which, of course, contribute to the dangerous phenomenon known as global warming.
Total emissions from vehicles of carbon dioxide increase directly in proportion to the growth of vehicles.


Given that Europe, with its 110 million cars, is already the world's biggest car market, we have a major responsibility to the world to deal with that problem.
We acknowledge that, in an advanced form, the lean-burn engine would be a major solution to carbon dioxide emissions because of increased engine efficiency. However, there appears to be no reason why the problems of the other pollutants and carbon dioxide cannot be dealt with in parallel. Catalytic converters under road conditions are more, not less—I stress this because I think that the Minister is mistaken—fuel efficient than non-catalytic cars. Substantial research shows that lean-burn engines, which are said to be 20 per cent. more efficient, are comparable to catalytic converters which can be shown to be 18 per cent. more fuel efficient. We are talking about a 2 per cent difference. [HON. MEMBERS: The hon. Lady cannot be serious."] I am indeed serious. I can give the scientific—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We are enjoying the teach in. Modern engines are much more fuel efficient than old ones. When a modern engine has a three-way catalytic converter attached to its exhaust system, I think that it reduces its fuel efficiency. That is the point, and we must not confuse the development of newer engines with what is put in them—[Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) who represents catalysts—

Mr. Richard Page: Not my constituency, but one near by.

Mr. Bottomley: I thought that it was my hon. Friend's constituency, but catalysts must be produced in a neighbouring constituency.

Ms. Ruddock: I shall stand by my point, and will provide the Minister with scientific evidence. Having looked at that evidence, I am absolutely convinced that it is quite clear that there are, and can be, gains in fuel efficiency with catalysts, as it is acknowledged that there are with the lean-burn engine. One reason why hon. Members have been misled into thinking that that is not so is due to the test conditions under which the scientific data were originally assembled. That data were based on city driving at an average of 12 miles per hour. In fact, the most important production of carbon dioxide occurs in motorway driving when people are driving much faster. We must make the appropriate comparison in order to find the data on which to base the argument.
Finally, I shall consider the manufacturers, the state of the industry and its preparedness to accept the new regulations. It appears that the manufacturers are not all hiding behind the Minister's caution. Some of them have already dashed to the starting line and many are way out in front. Volvo is making 90 per cent. of its range available with catalysts in the autumn. Vauxhall is already phasing in three-way catalysts on all its cars as standard equipment, starting in the autumn and to be completed within three years. In Germany, one cannot buy an Opel unless it has a three-way catalytic converter. Volkswagen also favours United States' standards. In the autumn it is making its entire range available with catalytic converters as an option and is offering to subsidise retro-fitting to all models made since 1979.
At the moment, Volkswagen is obliged to produce 638 different variants of the Golf engine in order to meet the different standards around the world. I cannot believe, therefore, that the two standards proposed in the draft directive are that significant.
Nissan plans to make three-way catalytic converters available in the United Kingdom ahead of any planned legislation. Ford is introducing the catalyst option progressively on a range of its models over the next 12 months, and from 1990 onwards new BMW models will be available only with catalytic converters.

Mr. Richard Page: I am delighted to hear that those manufacturers are making such a huge contribution to the environment, but do any of them claim that either the catalytic systems already in production in the United States or those that are to be produced will provide more fuel efficiency? That would be a tremendous selling point, and I should be surprised if the manufacturers were not pushing it, if it is the case.

Ms. Ruddock: The evidence from the United States is that fuel efficiency has not been a problem when catalytic converters are fitted to modern cars. We are talking about engines that are being produced from now until 1993, and about the need to reduce three major noxious emissions: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons. There is no other known way in which those pollutants can be reduced to the necessary level.

Mr. Page: I agree with that.

Ms. Ruddock: I do not think that an argument about another form of gaseous emission can be counterposed to suggest that reducing that will prevent us from dealing with the problem in hand, and catalytic converters have no detrimental effect on fuel efficiency.
In the light of the list that I have provided, we feel that we should be a bit sceptical about the Government's view that industry would be greatly disadvantaged by a two-tier system. A number of companies are already meeting the requirements proposed for 1991, and no doubt the supporters of those standards—particularly the West Germans—feel that their removal would be a retrograde step. It is clear that some companies will choose now to go for the 1993 standards and will have them in place by 1991, and nothing in the directive would prevent them from doing just that. Surely the House should welcome such a development, as every year of more stringent standards is a gain for our environment.
We require from the Government an unqualified statement that they will support the 1993 standards. The interim standards proposed may be inconvenient, but what the Minister seems to have said tonight—perhaps he will be good enough to confirm it when he winds up—is that the Government will support the 1993 standards only if they can secure agreement to the removal of the 1991 interim standards. That is completely unacceptable to the Opposition, and we will put it to the vote if the Minister does not clarify the position. We do not believe that Britain should stand in the way of reducing emissions to the 1993 standards because they do not like the interim standards.
This is a major environmental concern: nothing should stand in the way of improving our nation's environment and our nation's health.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am not easily moved to anger—particularly at 12.43 in the morning—when the House debates an issue of great importance to the quality of life, to the quality of the air that we breathe, and to the whole motor manufacturing industry. However, I am genuinely angry about the constitutional outrage of these proceedings.
This debate marks an all-time low in the already fragile relationship between Government and Parliament over the increasingly contentious issue of how we scrutinise EEC legislation and documents. I have complained often that such debates take place too late, are too short, or concern motions that are too bland or contradictory. But I have never had to complain that there is absolutely no point in the debate taking place at all because the Government have completely cut the ground away from Parliament's feet.
When Mr. Speaker or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was good enough to select the amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends, it was clear that the Chair was taking tonight's proceedings seriously, as did many of my other hon. Friends who came to the Chamber prepared with arguments in the hope that they could take part in the debate. What on earth is the point of being asked to debate a "take note" motion, which implies that the views of right hon. and hon. Members will be heard and carefully considered, when, on the very morning of the day on which the debate is to take place, the Government announce, without learning the views of right hon. and hon. Members, their strategy, tactics and policy, thus taking away from the House the right to have any say or to make any input to the process?
I do not like being, instead of a parliamentarian, a parliamentary wimp, a parliamentary eunuch, a parliamentary cipher.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mr. Aitken: No, I will not. I shall tell my hon. Friend what I will do. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, invited me to move an amendment. I shall not do so. I will withdraw that amendment, because I regard the circumstances in which the debate is taking place as an insult to the House. Important though the arguments are, I do not think it is right to enter into a debate on the merits of the case deployed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Minister.
We are taking part in a sham, a charade, a farce. Such action by the Government and by their business managers must stop and must never happen again. For those reasons, I shall not move the amendment but withdraw it. I shall now walk out—accompanied, I hope, by one or two of my hon. Friends—as a mark of protest against the constitutional outrage that is taking place tonight.

Sir Hal Miller: It is a narrow path to tread between the Euro-fanatics on the one hand and the slashing attack made by the Labour party on the midlands and on industry generally, ignoring completely the interests of workers, whether they be employed in the coal industry—[Interruption.] Yes, we heard all about emissions, but the Opposition totally overlook those of coal-fired power stations and of the midlands coalfields.
The Labour party likes to pretend that it is the friend of the workers when it suits it, and that it is in favour of the coal industry. Its opposition last night to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is now shown to be a masquerade, because they have no interest in protecting the workers concerned.
The only part of the European elections speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) that made any sense—and the Labour party's conversion to the European cause is as breathtaking and as recent as its conversion to multilateralism—was her suggestion that a clear decision should be made to introduce American emission standards, rather than adopt a further range of standards, by a definite date. Shifting the goal posts all the time presents difficulties for the car industry. Of course it is prepared to meet the demands of its customers. If it does not, the industry will soon cease to exist. But the industry must know how the requirements will be framed and when they must be brought into effect.
The hon. Lady recited a list of foreign competitors whom she encouraged to export their vehicles to this country. The Opposition keep blathering about our balance of payments, but motor imports currently account for two thirds of the visible trade deficit—yet this evening the hon. Lady was encouraging that situation to deteriorate further at the expense of jobs and investment. Hers was a preposterous performance.
It is important, of course, that the industry knows 'what the standards are and when they must be introduced. There could be a great advantage if the European standards were set to match the United States federal standards. If there is not that match, manufacturers will have to continue to change specifications. With large volume throughput—alas, our volume is not what it was —it is easier to make more frequent adjustments with more frequent model changes.
We in Britain were developing lean-burn technology, and we were encouraged by earlier decisions that it would be sufficient for small cars. It was of especial interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and myself and to manufacturers such as Peugeot and Fiat, about which we have not been hearing much this evening. Their Governments have voices on the Council and I should not be surprised if they are the ones to which my hon. Friend the Minister was referring when he was hinting at the qualified majority that might be obtainable in certain circumstances for the European standards to be set by 1993, and to do away with the interim standards in 1991. There is nothing to stop manufacturers meeting the standards earlier. No one is seeking to prevent the earlier marketing of models that meet the standards.
Far too great expectations have been raised of what the converters will achieve in the way of brightening up or rendering more sanitary our environment. The hon. Member for Deptford overlooks the fact that she attacked the roads programme. Having listened to her previous objections to British Rail's proposals, I do not know how we are supposed to be able to move round Britain in the increasing prosperity that the Government are bringing to it. She seems to be saying that we cannot have more roads and we cannot have more railway lines.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hal Miller: I shall finish my point before I give way to the hon. Lady.
As soon as cars stop in a traffic jam, all the good that was sought to be done is instantly undone and far more pollutant comes into the air. It is more important to ensure a free flow of traffic.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in the United States, between 1970 and 1983, the emission of noxious gases was reduced by 90 per cent.? That is a proven achievement, and it has been brought about by proven technology. The hon. Gentleman is contrasting the lean-burn engine with the catalytic converter. That does not make an argument in favour of any method of reducing emissions, including the way in which it can and has been done.

Sir Hal Miller: The hon. Lady is knocking British technology again and the opportunity that we have of developing a lead.
Of course there has been an improvement in the United States. There are much freer traffic flows in the United States. That is the point that I was making. Cars are kept moving in the United States, and as a result there is not the build-up of pollution that is experienced elsewhere.
As I understood the rather interrupted remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister, I thought that he was getting the matter right. We should introduce stricter standards in 1993 and do away with the interim standards, bearing in mind that they apply to smaller cars up to 1·4 litres. That is of great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and me, and I know that my hon. Friend will wish to take up the matter if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Manufacturers and others need to know that there will be a set of standards. They need to know also when they are to apply. With that knowledge, we can get on with the job of compliance.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This is a slight improvement, in practical terms, on the last time that we debated this matter. That was at 3 o'clock in the morning, rather than just coming up to 1 o'clock. However, it is regrettable that these debates take place after the event and at a time when no one is listening to them.
It is difficult for the Government to get across the message that they are leading Europe in the drive towards improved environmental standards when in reality they are taking decisions without consulting us first and when part of the proposal is to water down a previous agreement. The Government have a problem over trying to maintain that their view has always been consistent.
As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, the Americans blazed the trail and have achieved dramatic reductions in noxious emissions. It is amazing, however, that whenever this matter is debated we are told about all the wonderful benefits that the non-existent lean-burn engine will create. We are also told —as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) has again told us—that we are running down British technology. We have in this country one of the world leaders in catalytic converters but it has to get all its business from abroad. The Government refuse to introduce proposals that would ensure that British technology is in the lead.
I agree with the Government that the French are using stalling tactics. France is the anchor man of Europe in this area. I recall the advert that says that the Peugeot takes your breath away. I think that it does. The French Government's attitude takes it away even more. Peugeot says that catalytic converters are absurd, but it fits them to all its export models so that it can pick up all the business that is to hand.
We must grasp the nettle. We must move forward in a clear and consistent direction and accept that the catalytic converter is the way forward. We should get on with it instead of continuing to use stalling tactics.
It has been said that the catalytic converter leads to loss of efficiency. The hon. Member for Deptford said that that is not necessarily true. I hope that she is right. However, we may have to face up to a loss of efficiency and to an increase in cost, but that has to be set against the environmental improvement that will follow from its use.
The sooner a directive can be agreed and put into effect the sooner the industry will get its act together and address the efficiency and cost problems. I fear that it is wishful thinking to believe that the industry will respond to customer demand. Consumers want to see an improvement in the environment, but how many people are prepared to pay an extra £300 for a catalytic converter unless they are obliged to do so? People were not prepared to switch to unleaded petrol until there was a financial inducement to do so. Incidentally, I wonder when the Government will do what the German Government did. They allowed a significant differential on unleaded petrol until everybody had converted and then they imposed a surcharge. In Germany unleaded petrol is 10 per cent. dearer than leaded petrol now that the Government have got everybody hooked on to using it.
When we last debated the matter the Government said that they were anxious to go in this direction but not too fast because there were a number of technical difficulties and British interests to consider. That will always be the excuse and the argument. Ultimately, however, the nettle has to be grasped. The political groupings within the European Parliament have decided to put on the pressure, and the Commission has responded to it.
I accept that on occasions the Commission gets carried away by its own enthusiasm. Sometimes it makes proposals that are unnecessary or unworkable, and sometimes the time scale is unrealistic. I am not wholly convinced, however, that on this occasion that is the case. The Government will be left with egg on their face. They are suggesting that we push for an agreement that weakens what we had six months ago, on the basis that the ultimate goal is stronger, but that it will take two years longer to get there. That is not a convincing advance in greening the environment. It does not convince me and I do not believe that it will convince the British public. I wonder whether we are engaged in an exercise that will do until 15 June, with the real negotiations happening after that.
I realise that there is very little time and that other hon. Members may wish to speak. I think that we should move forward. The lean-burn engine is now an irrelevance. We should give our catalytic converter manufacturers a clear goal to aim for. We should recognise that the industry has the ability to respond but that it needs to be given a target. The Government should not give the industry all the leeway that it asks for, and nor should the European Community.

1 am

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I have always felt that there is a case to be made for catalytic converters in their own right, and not just as something imposed on us that we reluctantly accept. I do not think that there is a conflict between catalytic converters and lean-burn engines. The catalytic converter is present-day technology which has been used on millions of vehicles throughout the world and of which we have wide experience. There are no lean-burn engines in the strict sense, despite an earlier comment about the Ford engines being built at Bridgend. No one wishes to decry the success of Ford in that work. The plant was built for that very purpose but the engines are not capable of themselves, or even with a one-way converter, of meeting the standards to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.
The standards that we should be aiming at are those acceptable to the United States and to Scandinavia. We should be second to no one in our aim. Some of my hon. Friends do damage to the interest of the environment by talking about three-way converters as being an additional cost. Over the years a great many developments in motoring were regarded as an additional cost but they have become the accepted norm. In regard to comfort, we have the car heater; in safety, we have windscreen washers; in environmental protection we have silencers and resonators. I have no doubt that in future we will regard a development perhaps beyond the three-way converter as the norm. It may even be combined with a form of the lean-burn engine.
Accepting the converter does not mean that we have to abandon all other means of improving the efficiency of engines in order to save fuel and the efficiency of their operation so as to reduce the amount of emission into the atmosphere. The sooner manufacturers can ensure that electronic ignition and fuel injection are the norm on all small vehicles, the sooner we shall see improvements in fuel efficiency which will make it more possible to accept the cost of installing three-way converters.
The motorist may well feel that he will be faced with additional cost. The cost will riot be so great when this is a world standard. When converters are fitted to all motor cars as a matter of course, the cost will come down markedly. Because they contain precious metals, the cost will never be negligible, but technology will improve them and the cost will be acceptable. If we can get away from the argument, "Your kind of technology is better than mine," and look for a combination of the best existing technology, we shall be able to sell that to the motorist.
The motorist is as keen as everyone else on improvements in the cleanliness of the atmosphere. I have considerable experience of driving in Los Angeles. Reference has been made to the wide open spaces and the lack of traffic jams in the United States. Anyone who has been in a traffic jam on the San Diego freeway knows what a traffic jam is. I know a great many people in California but I do not know anyone who is not an enthusiast for the improvements that we are still busily discussing. Americans have lead-free petrol and converters and they recognise them as aspects of modern motoring. The sooner we accept that the matter is not controversial, the better.

Mr. Roger King: I have listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Everyone should have expressed an overwhelming desire that we should tackle the problems of pollution, especially those that affect the car exhaust system, in the most workable way. Much of the legislation that has been agreed by the European Commission and the member states on the cleaning up of the exhausts of cars of higher ccs than we are discussing would go unchallenged. Many manufacturers, including the Rover Group, already offer cars fitted with catalytic converters and desmogging exhaust systems necessary to comply with that legislation.
In November, we seemed quite clear about our attitude towards vehicles of up to 1·4 litres, but we now have to look at a more stringent set of requirements. Perhaps we thought we had the opportunity to adopt the twin track development of, first, a lean-burn engine system and a single converter and, secondly, a single converter for more conventional engines.
I am not cynical by nature, but I am aware of the imminent European elections. I noticed that the latest edition of the CLEAR newsletter, of which we have all received a copy, under the column headed, "What the papers say", contained an item which encapsulates exactly why this debate is taking place tonight. It highlights an item that appeared in The Independent on 6 April 1989 which stated:
EC bows to greens and plans tough exhaust controls. In a remarkable gesture to the Green movement, the European Commission last night pledged to propose tough US-style emission standards for cars, which could cut exhaust fumes produced by small saloon cars alone by as much as 75 per cent. before 1993.
I wonder whether there is a connection between what the Commission is seeking to do through the revision of rules that we are discussing and the fact that there is pressure on European parliamentarians in the run-up to the elections on June 15 to take a more positive initiative in solving the perceived problems of exhaust pollution.
Certainly the suggestion that we are seeking to clean up exhaust emissions by 75 per cent. is not correct. Exhausts will not pump out clear air as a result of the new proposals; they will pump out carbon dioxide, and we have another problem with the build-up of carbon dioxide around the earth which will not be helped by creating more of it in the proposed system of exhaust clean-up.
I am not suggesting that we should turn our backs on that system, but there are other ways of tackling the problem. In the early 1970s the United States had a major problem of exhaust pollution, principally in the Los Angeles basin. In those days it was common for Americans to buy 4, 5 or 6 litre V8 cars with very crude technology and very early ignition systems, which because they were never serviced—Americans keep their cars until they stop working before having them serviced—were polluting incredibly badly the environment in which they were travelling. That resulted in the legislature deciding that the exhaust should be cleaned up.
Since then, automobile technology—even allowing for the fact that catalytic converters are not fitted—has moved considerably further forward. For instance, we now have positive crank case ventilation, which means that the internal exhaust fumes which were vented into the atmosphere and which accounted for about 20 per cent. of


exhaust fumes from cars are recirculated and burnt by the engine. That has had a significant effect on reducing emissions.
We have also moved to transistorised ignition, better fuel injection and carburation systems and better techniques of engine management generally, all of which have helped to reduce emissions. We have, therefore, benefited considerably, and in America they have also benefited from the fact that the average size of car, in terms of engine cubic capacity, has dropped as their love affair with Japanese cars has had its impact. They are no longer driving such large vehicles.
It is time for us to ask whether, by this legislation—which will have a significant impact on small vehicles—we are moving in the right direction and whether it will rebound on us. If we pursue this course, it will handicap lean-burn technology. Ford is producing about 450,000 lean-burn-type engines, and I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said about that achievement. New and more advanced types of engine are being prepared, and the Rover Group has a new type of lean-burn engine which is due to be announced later this year.
That is significant progress, but we are putting that in jeopardy by insisting that those engines are also coupled to three-way catalytic converters, which will increase fuel consumption. There is no way round that. The engine is driving an air pump, and as anyone who knows anything about the internal combustion engine is aware, as one drives more systems off the engine, one must use more fuel; it takes energy to drive the generator, the electrical system, the water pump and an air pump into the exhaust system. So it is not true to say that given two cars, one with and one without a converter system, the converter system vehicle will be more economical.
In other words, we shall be consuming more fuel, which will create more exhaust emissions—more carbon dioxide —as a result. If we abandon lean-burn technology and go for the conventional engine-air ratio, burning within the engine, and a catalytic converter system, we shall get an increase of about 20 per cent. in fuel consumption and, hence a 20 per cent. increase in exhaust emissions. In other words, we shall be consuming fossil fuels in terms of petrol at a rate one fifth greater than we need consume.
There will also be a 13 to 15 per cent. increase in price, and there is no escaping that fact. Catalytic converters are expensive, and the ancillary air blowers fitted to them are equally expensive and require a small amount of maintenance. They are expensive to fit and the price will not drop dramatically.
There will, therefore, be little desire to develop the small engine, Surely, rather than concentrate on bigger engines for cars, it would be in everybody's interest to encourage the development of ever smaller and more efficient engines that breathe in less air and, by implication, pollute less. By attaching all this equipment to engines, we shall destroy an area of development which, in my view, could play a significant part in ensuring a better environment.
I fear that, as a result of this legislation, we shall see the end of vehicles such as the Mini, which has performed sterling service as an exceptionally fuel efficient car, averaging between 45 and 60 miles per gallon, thereby polluting in a small way. That vehicle is not large enough

to take this type of three-way catalytic converter. We will have to get used to bigger cars which will allow this type of system to be fitted because space in the car is required to take all the exhaust cleaning devices. They cannot be retro-fitted to existing cars. A car such as the Mini, which has been in production for 30 years, will go out of production as a result of the inability to modify it to comply with the 1993 regulations. A 1-litre car, consuming small amounts of air and polluting less, would be preferable but that is not what is suggested. We seem to want bigger engines and more pollution as a result of loading vehicles with this type of emission control.
Surely it makes sense to exempt vehicles up to 1 litre from having to use this type of anti-pollution equipment to allow engine developers to develop more and more precision engines which are more efficient. We should have engines capable of polluting less. As I have said, we should concentrate on engine efficiency.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State spoke clearly at the beginning of the debate. However, the interim measures suggested will confuse industry. If we have to accept emission control, it would be better to have the 1993 United States-style emission control rather than any interim measures. That would allow the manufacturers to concentrate on one goal. To that extent, I agree with my hon. Friend. However, it would have been much better for us to continue a debate with the European Commission and our partners in Europe to devise a much more sensible way of tackling this serious problem as it affects the small passenger car. There are alternatives and we should have explored them. However, in the event of our not being able to, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is entirely right to opt for the 1993 solution alone.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked how many people would voluntarily spend money to improve the environment. The answer is that some would, but not enough. We need some enforcement and a great deal of encouragement and, perhaps, example. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who is responsible for litter and anti-pollution measures. With others, she has managed to help raise the proportion of unleaded fuel that has been sold from 1 per cent. on her appointment to 15 per cent. now. It has been the second greatest cultural change since the war. If I was asked—I am sure that no one will ask—I would have to say that the greatest is the move away from drinking and driving in which I have played a small part.
The important point is that the 15 per cent. of people using unleaded fuel represents only about a quarter of those who could do so. Even with plenty of information to overcome ignorance and with a lop price differential to overcome the apathy, there is still a large number of people —some are probably Friends of the Earth, some may be in the Conservative party and some may be in one of the Opposition parties—who have not yet got round to using unleaded fuel in their cars. People should do so because that is the way forward. Whether we have cars with three-way catalysts or even one-way catalysts, we shall all use unleaded fuel in our new cars soon. We might as well start doing that now and show that we are concerned.
We have heard some lectures during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr.


King) gave us a lecture. I am sure that it was accurate but I am not sure how much of it would be supported by the manufacturers. We should not mislead ourselves and say that the smallest capacity cars have the best fuel efficiency. That is not always so. In fact, sometimes it is the middle range cars that have the best fuel efficiency. However, that varies between models and manufacturers. My hon. Friend was right to say—I hope that I made it clear in my speech, although some other lectures were taking place at the time—that 1993 would provide clarity for manufacturers. That is important. 1991 appears to have no friends here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) made probably the best speech in the debate. It was forthright, forceful and right. Those who have any doubts or who are no longer in the Chamber might take the opportunity of reading that speech. In that way they will understand what is in Britain's interests as manufacturers, consumers and environmentalists, led by my right hon. Friend, the well-known fellow of the Royal Society, the Prime Minister.
We have to try to keep common sense moving in line with technology. We must provide opportunities for future technology to come forward. It is clear that fast burn and lean burn will be the technology of the future. We shall have moved back one step on fuel efficiency by moving to this apparent compulsion for three-way catalysts. However, that is acceptable and we believe that it is achievable at the environment meeting on 8 June.
I need to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) that his record on these matters over a long time was brought out to the House well this evening and we are grateful to him for explaining some of the myths that should not worry people too much. There are advantages in welcoming progress, rather than rejecting it.
I can remember the early days of my motoring life, as a passenger when I was about eight years old, when it took about six hours to drive up to Stafford. I used to wonder why so many wimps and wets—before I realised that being a wet was a good thing rather than a bad thing—had heaters in their cars when everyone knew that a blanket was perfectly sufficient. Then came flashing indicators rather than little arms that came out at the side of the car to tell people which way one was going. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are many things that are now accepted as part of progress and even as being necessary, when previously they were optional extras and not all that desirable.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) gave the speech that I might have given if I had decided to take twice as long. She explained some of the basic chemistry. There is general agreement on what we are trying to achieve, except that there seems to be a rather liberal approach among the transport spokespeople on the Labour Front Bench. Her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) supports more new roads. She does not. It seems that we should try to find some way to reconcile that.

Ms. Ruddock: I did not, of course, say that I did not support new roads. I actually said that, through the Government's programme of much increased road building, the problem of increased carbon dioxide emissions will be continuously exacerbated.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful for that intervention. When we open roads like the Acle bypass on the A47 between Norwich and Great Yarmouth, where people in the summer can get through in two minutes rather than previously getting through in 45 minutes, or when we open the Okehampton bypass, where people can get past in 10 minutes rather than 1 hour 10 minutes, we find that there are fewer exhaust fumes. It seems to those of us scooting past on the high-speed train, seeing great lines of motorists and important commercial traffic that needs to be on the roads going nose to tail unnecessarily, that we are seeing more exhaust fumes coming out—exhaust fumes are a better way of describing them than gaseous emissions. We are trying to go for efficiency and to improve the environment.

Ms. Ruddock: I am sorry, but the Minister must acknowledge that it is the increase in the number of vehicles that will be dramatic. One cannot offset that by talking about vehicles in traffic queues.

Mr. Bottomley: Two thirds of the people with provisional licences are women. Under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the proportion of adult women with driving licences has moved from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., and will shortly rise to 60 per cent. and 75 per cent., the figure for men. It is all very well for the Labour party to say that it is all right for people to drive cars as long as they are middle-aged, middle class and male. We should try to remember the women, the pensioners and the ethnic minorities as well. I am a one-nation Conservative, as the hon. Lady has discovered.
The hon. Lady was in slight difficulty with her speech because she had obviously read The Guardian. I need to apologise to David Hencke because I only explained things to him once yesterday and, sadly, he was badly sub-edited. I want to make it plain that I was trying to explain to him —and I take all the blame myself—that we were not keen on 1991, but we were keen on 1993. I hope that when The Guardian reports this debate, it will try to report what I have said tonight, which I leaked to that paper last night.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister clarify now, therefore, what will happen if there is not a qualified majority—he may expect it, but he must acknowledge that there may not be—which will agree to remove the 1991 proposals? If the Government cannot have their way on the 1991 interim proposals, will they still support the 1993 proposals?

Mr. Bottomley: Our aim, which I stated clearly, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has stated clearly and which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), also stated clearly this afternoon, is that 1993 is to be supported. We do not support 1991. We believe that there is no qualified majority available for 1991. There is no manufacturing sense to the 1991 proposal, so we are not likely to get it. If the Council of Ministers cannot reach agreement the whole thing will be back on the boil and we can invite my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) back into the Chamber because then the sense of his amendment will have been met. I apologise to my hon. Friend because I should not perhaps have tried to insist on intervening in his speech in the way in which he intervened in mine because then it might not have been necessary for him to say


goodbye. What is important is to meet the last part of the amendment, which was not moved, which is to have what makes sense for the manufacturers.
It is also important to realise that the Government cannot always come to these debates with a totally open mind. I do not recall, when I was a Back Bencher, always coming to debates with a closed mind. When hon. Members, sadly, decide to leave in the middle of a debate, having obviously through extra-sensory perception come to the same view at the same time, they must allow Government to do the same thing and occasionally to try to anticipate the interests of manufacturers, as was wisely pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and many other hon. Members, and to try to provide an indication of what we believe to be not only in the national interest, but in the wider European interest as well. I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have helped to make that possible and I look forward to getting agreement at the European Council on 8 June, supported by everyone who has spoken in the debate, even those who, sadly, are no longer with us.
I ask that the House support the motion and that we move forward towards having a better atmosphere in Europe as well as in Britain.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 4.

Division No. 215]
[1.26 am


AYES


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carrington, Matthew


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dixon, Don





Doran, Frank
Mills, Iain


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Page, Richard


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pike, Peter L.


Hanley, Jeremy
Prescott, John


Harris, David
Ruddock, Joan


Haynes, Frank
Ryder, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hind, Kenneth
Stevens, Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Irvine, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jack, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Janman, Tim
Waller, Gary


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Lawrence, Ivan
Wood, Timothy


Lightbown, David



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, David
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Miller, Sir Hal



NOES


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)



Evans, John (St Helens N)
Tellers for the Noes:


McAllion, John
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Eddie Loyden.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6529/89 on vehicle emissions; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure an agreement on emissions from small cars, taking into account environmental effects, fuel economy and the needs of industry.

INHERITANCE TAX

Ordered,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances and on Gifts) (Sweden) Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th April.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Schools (Capacity)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Tom Arnold: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of school capacity. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I want to draw the attention of the House to the dispute that has arisen between the village of Highlane in the Hazel Grove constituency and the local authority, the Stockport metropolitan borough council.
The borough council has recently carried out a reorganisation of secondary education in the borough and, as part of that reorganisation, it has also introduced new priority areas for determining who can be admitted to particular schools. Since October of last year, I have received representations from parents in the village of Highlane, who have discovered that, contrary to the previous history of the village, they can no longer expect to send their children to the town of Marple to be educated in Marple's high school. That has come as a great shock to my constituents in that village, because hitherto Highlane has been included in the Marple priority area, and now and henceforth that will no longer apply.
I have received a great deal of correspondence and I have attended a great many meetings, including at least two public meetings that were extremely well attended. The feeling in the village has run high, because it is a village community and one where a sense of cohesion has traditionally been a marked characteristic of life in the village.
The situation has been made worse by the fact that it had been widely thought in the village of Highlane that at a meeting in 1985 to discuss the council's proposals an undertaking was given by the then chairman of the education authority that, consequent upon the changes to reorganisation in the borough, parents in Highlane could continue to send their children to Marple. The parents believed that an undertaking had been given at that meeting. The local authority denies that and as there is no agreed record of what took place at the meeting, this rather odd and disturbing situation cannot be resolved one way or another. I thought it worthwhile mentioning this to my hon. Friend the Minister because it underlines once again the extent to which feeling in the village has been driven to a very high pitch by the sequence of events which has taken place.
The history of Highlane has been inextricably bound up with the town of Marple. The children of Highlane have been educated in Marple, to my understanding, since the first half of the 19th century. Certainly in recent decades the links between the village of Highlane and the village of Marple have been very strong. The issue that we are facing now relates to parental choice.
I do not believe that it was right for me to have campaigned at the last general election on the issue of parental choice only to turn round now to the parents in Highlane who are affected by this issue and say to them, "Ah well, but of course in your particular circumstances parental choice does not apply. It is administrative convenience which must rule the day." I do not accept that proposition, but the local council and councillors are urging me to accept it.
There will always be occasions when granting freedom to individuals will produce untidy situations. It may well be that in trying to organise secondary education in the metropolitan borough of Stockport the council will face a certain amount of untidiness if the principle of parental choice is to be allowed to proceed. My attitude towards that is, "Well, so be it." It is worth having a certain amount of untidiness to maintain a fundamental freedom and to increase it with regard to parental choice in this issue.
In a letter to me dated 1 December 1988 my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that there is an appeals procedure. Mrs. Hazel Howard, who lives in Highlane and who is a leading campaigner in the local movement, said that the effect of the new priority areas is that
the children of Highlane will in future have absolutely no choice but to attend Hazelgrove high school.
My hon. Friend the Minister explained that that is not so. Stockport education authority operates an admissions system which guarantees children living in a certain priority area a place at the school associated with that area. However, that does not debar other pupils from applying for vacant places. It is also open to parents to appeal to an independent local appeal committee if their choice is not accepted. My hon. Friend the Minister explained that he understood that last year 15 appeals against non-admission to Marple Hall school were successful.
All that is true, but I do not believe that an annual appeals procedure is the same as having a right. Previously the parents had a right by virtue of the way in which the boundaries of the priority area were drawn. To tell the parents that they have an appeals procedure available to them is hardly the same as recognising the historical ties of the village and allowing them to take it for granted that their children, upon completing primary education, could proceed to Marple. As I suggested earlier, administrative convenience has won the day. While I do not doubt for one moment that compromises were necessary within the metropolitan borough of Stockport to carry through the reorganisation of secondary education, I want to make my position perfectly clear. I am challenging the council's policy of priority areas.
The councillors and council officials concerned have been at some pains to say to people who have raised objections and made representations to the authority that they do not consider that the capacity of the Marple school is the real point at issue. They say that we are effectively challenging the authority's decision on priority areas. My response to that is to say, precisely. It may well be proper for the council to develop a policy and it may be entirely understandable that it should wish to develop it in this particular way, but not at the expense of the principles to which I referred earlier.
The capacity of Marple Hall school has been the subject of widespread local debate. My hon. Friend the Minister has kept me in touch with the various complicated developments which have taken place in the recent past. I shall not rehearse all the figures now, except to say that parental choice should be limited only by the school's capacity to take pupils, and no other criteria. If Marple Hall has the capacity to take these parents' children, the school should be allowed to do so.
The numbers of children involved are not large. Although, when the matters were first brought to my attention, 35 families were involved, the number of children has now dropped to 11. That is because the


passage of time and the parents' concern about the future of their children's education this autumn has led them to make other arrangements. A number of children have accepted places at a Cheshire school in Poynton. A number of other parents may be thinking that they should accept the policy put forward by Stockport that henceforward their children must go to Hazel Grove. However, 11 parents who want their children to go to Marple Hall enjoy my support.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that Marple Hall does not have the capacity to take the relatively small number of children involved. However, the council has been adamant in responding to all my representations by saying that it is not prepared to deviate from its policy because to do so would create serious repercussions across the metropolitan borough. It would say that, but my constituents and I cannot possibly support that attitude.
What then is to be done, and what would I like my hon. Friend the Minister to do? I recognise that in such matters his powers must, necessarily, be limited. My hon. Friend was kind enough to point out in one of his letters to me that, under the open enrolment provisions of our new legislation, there would be scope for what is referred to technically as the standard number—in this case 270, which has been set as the admissions level for Marple Hall —to be revised.
In his letter, my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that:
The authority are of course, free to admit above the published admission number if there is fair capacity available. From 1st September 1989, the governing body of the school will also be able to propose a higher number than the authority's published figure if it has reason to think that that number, whether it is the standard number or not, is too low. If that is rejected by the authority, the governing body's proposal will then fall to the Secretary of State to decide … I should explain that this provision does not come into force until September because it will only be then that admission levels are published for the 1990 intake. Admission authorities are entitled to set a level for 1990 and beyond which is higher than a school's standard number, without publishing proposals. It remains to be seen whether Stockport will do so for Marple Hall, but whether they do so now or not is a matter for them.
At the moment, I am not optimistic that Stockport council would wish to avail itself of that procedure because it has been so adamant about its desire to stand by its present policy at all costs. I hope that this debate will help to focus attention locally on the important issues of principle which are involved. I hope that it will help both the Marple Hall governors and the councillors and their officials to recognise that my constituents' sense of grievance in this case is genuine and rooted in much precedent and local history.
I hope that—notwithstanding the lateness of the date in terms of the arrangements that must be made for next autumn—a spirit of good will can prevail, and that the council will recognise that it should try to meet the points that have been made by adopting a more flexible and, I believe, more reasonable policy. That policy should recognise that parental choice has a part to play in our fundamental freedoms, and that an issue of freedom faces us now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on the tenacity and clarity with which he has pursued this issue over a long period. When I knew that he had succeeded in securing this Adjournment debate I looked at past correspondence and noted that my predecessor also had to deal with the matter. In the light of that, I thought that the best way in which I could help my hon. Friend would be to see whether I could give the House any new or additional information which my hon. Friend could then communicate to his constituents when they sought his advice—which I am sure they will continue to do, given his diligence in pursuing their interests.
As my hon. Friend made clear, his main concern is the matter of the priority areas for Marple Hall and Hazel Grove high schools in Stockport. He has written to me about it several times, and I am aware that it is currently of particular concern to parents in the Highlane area. My hon. Friend described the long and historic links between Highlane and the village of Marple. I confirm that his anxiety for parental choice to be delivered is also very much my concern, and we do not differ at all on the priority that it should be given in practice within local authorities. However, we run a pluralistic system in our society and, indeed, in education, and there are parts of local authority remits in which a DES Minister cannot and should not intervene. We can, however, urge on all involved the view that local authorities should where possible consolidate on schools that are supported by parental choice, and that that is the best way in which to serve the interests of the local community—and, in the long term, those of the local education authority.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the children of Highlane have for the most part attended Marple Ridge high school. Because Highlane is further from Marple Hall than from Marple Ridge and is nearer to another school —Hazel Grove high school—I understand that it was the LEA's decision to include Highlane in the priority area of Hazel Grove high school. That was Stockport's decision. My hon. Friend, as I have said, is fighting for his constituents' interests, and is legitimately seeking ways either to challenge that decision or—as I interpret his comments—to appeal to the authority's sense of reason and duty to respond to the demands of its residents, ratepayers and electors.
I am a little mystified by the attitude that a long tradition should be curtailed, and that long-standing loyalties, parental choice and commitments—which, for all I know, may well run through families for generations —should be severed in this way.
I shall amplify the comment that I made in my recent letter to my hon. Friend. From 4 August 1990, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, schools will be required to admit at least their standard numbers if there is sufficient demand. There is provision in the Education Reform Act 1988 for admissions authorities to admit in excess of a school's standard number. Furthermore, an authority that is not responsible for admissions can take action if necessary.
Where the local education authority is responsible for admissions, that authority is the governors—and vice versa. My hon. Friend may like to consider that aspect tomorrow morning, when we have had a chance to


recharge our cerebra with the tonic that comes from sleep. If the judgment of that authority is that the existing standard number underestimates the school's capacity, and if it cannot reach agreement with the admissions authority on the level of admission, on or after 1 September 1989 it may ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to fix a higher standard number.
Any future amendment to the standard number of Marple Hall school will be for the local education authority and the governors to consider in the first instance. Only the Secretary of State can vary a standard number, so it would not be in order for me to comment on that possibility—in case such an application were to come before my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, to use these awful words, the quasi-judicial position of the Secretary of State is a regular and frequent restraint on what can and cannot be said, even in this Chamber.
As I indicated, the question of priority areas is riot within my right hon. Friend's locus and therefore I cannot comment on it. However, I hope that my remarks on the mechanism of requesting—as in this case, presumably—an upward variation in the standard number are helpful. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will refer to me again if he requires further advice or clarification of how his constituents can make use of that mechanism—presumably, and preferably, with the co-operation of the local authority. I hope that my hon. Friend finds some reassurance in those few words. I shall continue to keep a close eye on developments in the community whose interests he represented so well tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.